Fundamentals of Hadith Interpretation

Fundamentals of Hadīth Interpretation
An English Translation of
Mabādī Tadabbur-e Hadīth
Amīn Ahsan Islāhī
Translated by
Tariq Mahmood Hashmi
AL-MAWRID
Fundamentals of Hadīth Interpretation ii
51-K Model Town, Lahore
All Rights
ISBN
Contents
Translator’s Introduction 1
Preface 10
Chapter 1: Difference between Hadīth and Sunnah 14

1.1 Hadīth 14
1.2 Types of Khabar 15
1.2.1 Khabar-i Mutawātir 15
1.2.2 Khabar-i Wāhid 16
1.3 Categories of Ahādīth according to Authenticity 16
1.3.1 Genuine and Acceptable Ahādīth 16
1.3.2 Fabricated and Unacceptable Ahādīth 17
1.3.3 Indeterminable Ahādīth 17
1.4 The Sunnah 18
1.5 Importance of the Sunnah 19
1.6 Mutual Harmony of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah 20
1.7 Nature and Scope of the Sunnah 20
1.8 The Sunnah is not based on Ahādīth 20
1.9 A Question to the Munkirīn-i Sunnah 22
1.10 Different Paradigmatic Practices of a Single Religious
Issue 23
Chapter 2: Interrelation of the Qur’ān the Sunnah and the Hadīth 25

2.1 Muhammad (sws) as Teacher of the Sharī‘ah 26
2.2 Genesis of the Extremist Positions on
Authoritativeness of Ahādīth 27
2.3 Ahādīth and the Sunnah cannot abrogate the Qur’ān 28
2.4 Can a Sunnah or a Hadīth specify a General
Command of the Book? 30
Chapter 3: Fundamental Principles of Understanding Ahādīth 35

3.1 The Qur’ān is the Measure of Truth 35
3.2 Collating the Narratives on a Single Topic 37
3.3 Language of Ahādīth 37
3.4 Specification and Generalization, Situation and
Context, and the Nature of Address 38
3.5 Mutual Harmony of Religion, Fitrah and Reason 42
3.6 Conclusion 42
Chapter 4: Basic Criteria to Sift the Sound from the Unsound Ahādīth 44
Fundamentals of Hadīth Interpretation ii
4.1 Religious Taste of the Believers and those Grounded
in Knowledge 44
4.2 The Ma‘rūf 49
4.3 The Qur’ān 51
4.4 The Known Sunnah 52
4.5 Reason and Commonsense 54
4.6 Definitive Evidence 55
4.7 Conclusion 56
Chapter 5: Companions of the Prophet (sws) 57

5.1 Testimony of the Qur’ān 57
5.2 Testimony of Ahādīth 57
5.3 Muhaddithūn’s Viewpoint 58
5.3.1The First Group 59
5.3.2The Second Group 59
5.3.3The Third Group 59
5.4 Sahābiyyah according to the Qur’ān 60
5.5 Conclusion 63
Chapter 6: Excellence of the Isnād and its Inherent Limitations 65

6.1 The Isnād and Asmā’ al-Rijāl 66
6.2 The Isnād: one of the Criteria 68
6.3 First Limitation of the Isnād 68
6.4 Second Limitation of the Isnād 69
6.5 Third Limitation of the Isnād 70
6.6 Fourth Limitation of the Isnād 72
6.7 Summary 73
Chapter 7: Riwāyah bi al-Ma‘nā: Transmission by Meaning 74

7.1 Conditional Allowance of Riwāyah bi al-Ma‘nā 76
7.2 Vulnerability of Riwāyah bi al-Ma‘nā 78
7.3 Pursuing Verbatim Narration 81
7.4 Conclusion 81
Chapter 8: Authoritativeness of Akhbār-i Āhād 83

8.1 Definition 83
8.2 Mālikī View 83
8.3 Hanafī View 85
8.4 Shāfi‘ī View 87
8.5 The Principle View 90
8.6 Conclusion 91
Chapter 9: Causes of Hadīth Fabrication 92

9.1 Why were Ahādīth Fabricated? 92
9.2 Pious Fabrications 92
Fundamentals of Hadīth Interpretation iii
9.2.1 First Form 93
9.2.2 Second Form 94
9.3 Pious Reformers 96
9.4 Hadīth Fabrication for Evil Purposes 98
9.4.1 Fabrication for Fame 98
9.4.2 Fabrication for Innovations 99
9.5 The Muhaddithūn on the Innovators 101
9.6 Conclusion 104
Chapter 10: Primary Sources of Hadīth Study 105

10.1 Natural Approach of Hadīth Study 106
10.2 The Primary Sources 107
10.3 Distinguishing Qualities of Muwattā 109
10.4 The Status of the Two Sahīhs 112
10.5 Distinctive Qualities of Sahīh of Bukhārī 113
10.6 Distinctive Qualities of Sahīh of Muslim 115
10.7 Conclusion 116
Fundamentals of Hadīth Interpretation iv
Bismillah
Translator’s Introduction
The present work by Imām Amīn Ahsan Islāhī, a renowned

Pakistani scholar, the author of a nine volume commentary on
the Holy Qur’ān entitled Tadabbur-i Qur’ān, besides more than a
dozen other books on various important Islamic disciplines,
addresses some fundamental questions about the prophetic
traditions, generally believed to be the second source of religious
knowledge in Islam besides the Qur’ān. The author has taken up
the fundamental questions about the prophetic hadīth including
the authenticity of the traditions, the difference between the
Sunnah and the Hadīth, role of isnād, its importance and its
inherent limitations, and some basic questions about the process
of riwāyah (transmission) and dirāyah (textual) investigation. He
sets forth principles of understanding the ahadīth as well as the
methodology of sifting the sound from the unsound reports. It is
not, by form and content, an introduction to the Science of
Hadīth. Iss lāhh ī confines himself to the discussion of a few
fundamental issues while presuming a basic technical knowledge
of the Science of Hadīth at the end of the reader. It is a seminal
work in the sense that the author has discussed and highlighted
facts which answer many questions on the authenticity of the
prophetic tradition – oral, textual (i.e. ahādīth) and practical (i.e.
sunan) – and their relation to the foundational text, the Qur’ān.
Muslims have always held that the Sunnah is the source of
religious knowledge next only, in terms of reliability, to the
Qur’ān. However, the question of its authoritativeness and its
relation to the Divine text has always been debated among them.
Many scholars came to hold that the prophetic tradition consists
of the traditions handed down to the subsequent generations by
individual-to-individual reports (akhbār-i ahh ād). Most of the
authorities do not distinguish clearly between hadīth and sunnah.
Presuming the terms sunnah and hadīth to be interchangeable,
the scholars wrestled over the authenticity or lack of it in the
prophetic tradition. Subsequently some people took extreme
positions in this regard. Iss lāhh ī points out that a group of
Fundamentals of Hadīth Interpretation 2
scholars declared all the ahādīth as spurious tales while another
declared the ahādīth equal to and even overruling the Qur’ān.
Those who declared it equal to the Qur’ān in authenticity and
historicity did so while admitting it to be akhbār-i āhād. On the
other hand those who rejected it altogether rejected something
which formed fundamental and inseparable part of the religion
transmitted through perpetual adherence of the ummah in each
generation.
One cannot deny that there has always existed in Muslim
scholarship, a vague understanding of the difference between the
terms hadīth and sunnah, yet mostly the picture was blurred to
admit of any clear distinction. I do not know of any treatise in the
entire Islamic literature which so clearly posits this difference
between the two and treats both on scales they individually merit,
as the work presently before us. Iṣlāḥī tries to show that the most
crucial issue and the critical question in major discussions around
the interrelationship between the Qur’ān and the prophetic
tradition and the authoritativeness and otherwise of ahādīth is
resolved through recognizing a clear distinction between what is
denoted by the two terms hadīth and sunnah. The author
achieves this, in chapter 1, through an analysis of the terms,
nature of the concepts denoted by hadīth, sunnah, and mode of
transmission of each, and their respective roles in Islamic
epistemology. The most crucial findings of Iṣlāḥī include his
assertion that the Sunnah does not depend on ahadīth and is
derived from the perpetual and consistent practice of each
generation of the believers since the Prophet (sws) taught and
instituted it in the first generation.
Having distinguished from the Sunnah, which is an absolutely
authentic and reliable source forming the fundamental part of the
religion, the hadīth literature can be treated on scientific
principles. For example, Iss lāhh ī argues, there is no need to defy
reason and declare individual-to-individual reports, whose
vulnerability has always remained clear to the Muslim
scholarship, as historically equal or superior to the Qur’ān.
Similarly there is no need to defy academic principles and
recklessly declare all the hadīth literature as spurious and
unreliable. This distinction between hadīth and sunnah proves
that the Qur’ān, an absolutely authentic source, does not stand in
need of ahādīth, a probable truth. The Book of God and the
Sunnah of the Prophet (sws) are the only sources of Islam. The
ahādīth come next to these sources as very useful record of the
prophetic knowledge, explanation of the Qur’ānic text, historic
details regarding the formative phase of Islam and the best
example set by the Prophet (sws).
The remaining issues including the question of interrelation of
the Book and the Sunnah and the HH adīth branch from and
depend on the confusion regarding the boundaries of the Hadīth
and the Sunnah. The question whether the Qur’ān depends on the
Hadīth or vice versa is resolved once it is established that the
Sunnah is an independent source which does not rely on ahādīth
and that the Sunnah is an absolutely authentic source of
knowledge, equal to the Qur’ān as far as the historicity of the
sources and their Prophetic origin is concerned. The precepts of
the faith of Islam are set out in the Qur’ān in textual form and are
complemented by the practices instituted by the Prophet (sws) in
the form of the Sunnah. Then, whereas the Qur’ān is the word of
God, the Sunnah is the demonstrative form of the religious
performance instituted by the Messenger of God. Both these
sources emanate from the Prophet (sws) who taught them to the
generation of the Companions (rta) who, in turn, by their
consensus and perpetual adherence, handed it down to the next
generation and so on to our times.
In Iṣlāḥī’s view, the relation of the Book to the Sunnah is that
of the soul to a body. The body has to adjust according to the
soul. It cannot mould or reshape the soul to accord to it. That the
Sunnah and the HH adīth cannot overrule the commands of the
Book has been argued by Iss lāhh ī through rational and received
arguments with the help of examples. He terms the belief that
Hadīth can override the Qur’ān as erroneous. Being clear on the
authenticity of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah on the one hand and
the probability of the ahādīth on the other, he is able to show that
the less reliable source has to be in accord with the more reliable
one. This interrelation of the three important sources of religious
law in Islam has been explicated in chapter 2.
The above mentioned facts and observations have a direct
bearing on the process of hadīth interpretation. The principles of
understanding the ahādīth therefore assume clear and concrete
shape. The cornerstone of Iṣlāḥī’s approach towards
understanding the hadīth literature is his concept of the
overarching authority of the Qur’ān. While introducing the
principle of understanding the hadīth literature (Chapter 3), the
author stresses the importance of the consequences of the
interrelation of the Qur’ān, the Sunnah and the Hadīth, for
Muslim jurisprudence. He highlights the status of the Qur’ān
over the rest of the sources and asserts that, being the word of
God, a textual evidence of absolute certainty, the Book is the
basic criterion of true religious knowledge. A summary of the
principles of interpretation of hadīth literature, that we find
emerging in Iṣlāḥī’s work is as follows:
a) The ahādīth, which are only probably true, are to be
interpreted in the light of the Qur’ān. They are a branch of the
root, the book of God. The ahādīth only explicate the themes of
the Book. Therefore, the material of the ahādīth must accord to
the themes of the Book. For whatever the Prophet (sws) said or
did always accorded perfectly to the dictates of the Book. This
entails that a student of the ahādīth should look for the basis of
the traditions in the Book and understand them in the light of the
word of God.
b) Since a hadīth report is to be seen as the part of a sprawling
literature, one has to have comprehensive understanding of the
whole corpus and one should interpret the part in the light of the
whole. If a report does not fit well in the overall structure it has
to be either reinterpreted to make it fit within the whole or has to
be regretfully discarded.
c) One also needs to have a good understanding of the language
of the prophetic traditions.
d) An interpreter of hadīth should also remain conscious of the
fact that the prophetic traditions always speak in a given context.
Losing the trail of the context risks a misunderstanding of the
words of the Prophet (sws). There are examples which show that
ignoring this fact has sometimes led people to hold what defies
the foundations of the religion.
e) Similarly, one needs to appreciate that the Prophet (sws) is
not expected to defy reason and the fitt rah (human nature) for the
Faith does not contain any element that violates the fitt rah or the
human reason. Therefore, the traditions should be pondered over
in the light of the dictates of reason and fitt rah. The Book of God
itself adduces reason and fitt rah to prove many of its
fundamental premises.
Transmitted through individual-to-individual mode of transfer
the hadīth narratives contain all types of reports, sound and the
unsound. Therefore, Iṣlāḥī advises caution in accepting a hadīth
report solely on the basis of its isnād. Its contents have to be
minutely discussed and assessed on various scales. In chapter 4,
Islāhī discusses how it is incumbent to see if the hadīth under
consideration is in accord with the religious taste (zawq) of the
firm believers and those grounded in its knowledge. Here Iṣlāḥī
invokes the valuable contributions of the traditional Muslim
scholarship. The taste of the firm believers and established
scholars of Islam is important for they are acquainted with the
spirit of the religion and the nature of the Prophetic teachings
based on their study of the Book of God. Their long and
meaningful exposure to the corpus of prophetic knowledge
enables them to assess whether a saying attributed to the Prophet
(sws) is in line with the disposition of the Prophet (sws) and the
essence of the religion. A true believer with a thorough
knowledge of the religion can discern whether a statement can
issue from the source they are familiar with. Similarly it must not
contradict the customary practice of the ummah which is always
based on the Qur’ān and the Sunnah whose authenticity is not
disputed. The Qur’ānic teachings and the known Sunnah both
have the overriding authority over the ahādīth reports. Collective
reason of the human beings and any definitive argument should
also help us discern whether a narrative ascribed to the Prophet
(sws) is genuinely attributed to him or not.
It has been accepted by the scholars of the ummah from the
earliest times that the Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws) are
not to be subjected to the principles of isnād investigation.
However, the definition of a Companion has remained under
discussion. Chapter 5 defines the term ss ahābī. It discusses the
rationale of the view that the Companions (rta) are all just and
establishes this principle on the authority of the Qur’ān and the
prophetic traditions. After discussing the various views held by the
earlier authorities, it sums up that only such persons may validly
be called ss ahh ābah who had availed the company of the Prophet
(sws) for a considerably long time and who received training at his
hands in religion and morality. Not every person who happened to
have occasionally seen the Prophet (sws) or met him once or twice
can be taken as his Companion. This Islāhī shows through citing
the Qur’ānic guidance and prophetic ahādīth on the subject.
The chain of narrators or the isnād begins with the name of a
Companion (rta) of the Prophet (sws), who claims to have
witnessed him say or do anything. It travels through the
individuals in the subsequent generations till it reaches one of the
compilers. The Muslim traditionists evolved the discipline of
asmā’ al-rijāl (Biographies), one of the sciences of which the
Muslims can be genuinely proud of, to help investigate the
biographies of the individual narrators on scientific grounds and
ascertain whether they are reliable narrators to transmit material
which is likely to constitute the part of the Faith. They made sure
that the narrators bringing in a report are persons of impeccable
moral character, sound memory, followed the religion faithfully,
avoided sinfulness and developed a fair understanding of the
religion of God. They made sure that the persons involved in the
hadīth transmission had met their authorities whom they quoted.
No other nation or religious group matches the Muslim
accomplishment in this regard. This, however, does not mean
that the discipline of asmā’ al-rijāl and the methodology of isnād
criticism were flawlessly applied nor would it be incumbent to
accept any hadīth merely because it is transmitted by the
seemingly imposing isnāds.
Chapter 6 discusses the value of the isnād and its inherent
limitations. It stresses that merely a sound isnād of a hadīth is not
sufficient proof of its origin. There are other criteria of gauging
the authenticity of the traditions which must also be carefully and
vigorously applied. Among the possible inherent limitations of
the isnād is the possibility that the data collected about
individuals who lived decades or centuries ago is not always
entirely objective. One cannot be sure if the data about a certain
personality is absolutely certain or whether it takes into account
his beliefs, ideals, moral conduct and ability to receive ahādīth
material and transmit them without affecting and altering its
meaning. We often form incorrect opinions about the character of
contemporary persons in our immediate environment. Therefore,
it is not possible to give a conclusive judgment regarding persons
living in far off places in remote times. We need to be aware of
this limitation of isnād investigations. People on whose
testimony we rely in the process of judging the characters were
also human beings. They could have been affected by group
allegiances, personal opinions and subjectivity. No human is
expected to be perfectly free of all types of biases and partiality.
It is also important to note that many traditionists did not
properly investigate the isnād if the hadīth transmitted by a chain
did not pertain to legal rulings. This means that the traditions
which discussed the Muslim beliefs and practices, exaltation of
certain deeds and condemnation of some others were accepted
rather liberally. The muhaddithūn even accepted ahādīth from
the heretics, innovators and extremist sects including shī‘īs
(rawāfid). It does not need much to explain that the innovators
had the motivation to fabricate ahādīth, namely to legitimize
their views.
According to Islāhī, another problem in the process of hadīth
transmission is that of narration by meaning instead of verbatim
reporting. This makes it possible that the person communicating
the narratives might have failed to properly understand and fully
communicate a complex idea. Much subjectivity involves in
transmission by meaning.
Chapter 7 takes up this question in detail. It warns the student
of ahādīth to remain alive to the fact that it was not possible to
narrate everything verbatim and the ummah had to rely on the
transmission of meaning to make the hadīth transmission
possible. On the other hand there are instances in which the
process has caused irreparable damage to the teachings contained
in the tradition. Islāhī demonstrates this by citing a number of
examples from the lifetime of the Prophet (sws) himself, in
addition to examples from the later generations.
Having studied the major problems in the process of isnād
criticism and the mode of transmission of ahādīth, the discussion
on the correct stance regarding the authoritativeness of ahādīth is
relatively easier to grasp.
Chapter 8 surveys the views of the major juristic schools
including hh anafī, mālikī and shafi‘ī scholars on the question. It
has been mostly acknowledged that the ahādīth are an
inconclusive and probable (zz annī) source of knowledge. It does
not yield conclusive, certain and immediate knowledge (yaqīnī).
This does not mean that the individual narratives are worthless.
One can rely on ahādīth as a source of religious knowledge after
examining them in the light of the teachings of the Qur’ān, the
Sunnah of the Prophet (sws) and dictates of reason and fitt rah.
However, conclusiveness is still not the characteristic expected to
mark these reports.
Chapter 9 comprises a discussion on the analysis of the causes
of hadīth fabrication. It has been shown that the ahādīth have
been fabricated both for pious as well as impious motives. Many
pious individuals sought to rely on fabricated traditions to spread
virtue and piety. They tried to exhort the believers to do certain
good deeds which they considered were being ignored and to
warn them of evil consequences of vices. This has not escaped
the notice of the vigilant muhaddithūn who discovered this evil
and tried to expose the ‘pious’ fabricators. However, the
muhaddithūn did not strictly follow the principles of jarh wa
ta‘dīl (investigation into the reliability of hadīth narrators) while
analyzing the ahādīth pertaining to exhortations and warnings.
They observed the requisite caution only while investigating
legal traditions containing teachings about halāl wa harām. Thus
the evil of hadīth fabrication remained operative. The pious
fabricators spread the spurious traditions and these found entry
even in the major hadīth works. The ahādīth have also been
invented to earn fame and support the innovatory beliefs and
practices. Here too the muhaddithūn did not show requisite
vigilance. They opted for accepting ahādīth from such innovators
who did not openly confess their innovations and did not call
others to follow their creed. This again opened the door to
innovations on a large scale. Therefore, we can expect a great
number of ahādīth in the famous compilations which need to be
reinvestigated. This demands that the student of the hadīth
literature shows extra vigilance while relying on a narrative as a
basis of any religious issue.
The author concludes his discussions by identifying the primary
sources of ahādīth (Chapter 10). He posits that it is extremely
important to select the primary sources in any discipline. In the
hadīth discipline, according to him, there are three works which
can be considered the primary sources. He includes Muwattā of
Imām Malik, Sahīh of Imām Muslim and Sahīh of Imām Bukhārī
in the primary sources. He believes that a study of these books
helps the student acquire sufficient knowledge of the discipline
and there remains no need to thoroughly study other hadīth
works. Other sources, however, can be resorted to for additional
support and in-depth study of a particular issue.
As the author has stated in the preface, this is a compilation of
his lectures on the issues. These lectures were delivered orally
and the reader should not expect it to be perfectly structured and
well ordered. There are repetitions and redundancies in the text. I
have sought to consider this fact in my translation and have tried
to omit such repetitions. However, still there is much room to
improve the overall structure and to further refine the way these
discussions were held and recorded. The reader needs to keep
this in mind while studying the book.
The book is not an introductory work and requires basic
knowledge of the disciplines. It does not provide explanation of
commonly used terms except when it is crucial to a particular
discussion. I have tried to explain some terms and concepts in the
footnotes. The readers are requested to forward suggestions and
improvements in this regards so that the translation can be made
more useful. I have also tried to provide proper references and
citations to the sources quoted. I have tried to use the commonly
accepted terms and to explain them in parenthesis wherever
necessary. The most important ones, which are also employed
more frequently, are the hadīth and sunnah. The term hadīth, it
should be noted, is used both for individual narratives as well as
the corpus of the ahādīth. I have differentiated between the two
by putting the term with the capital HH when used in the latter
sense. Similarly, the word sunnah has been used in two different
senses. In the sense of the distinct category of prophetic
traditions, it has been put as the Sunnah with a capital S whereas
in the sense of a given practice it is mentioned in the lower case.
Instead of the hādīths for plural of hadīth I have preferred
ahadīth, the original Arabic term. It also needs to be noted that
the abbreviation (sws) written after a mention of the name of the
Prophet Muhammad (sws) stands for the formula ss allallāhu
‘alayhi wa sallam which means peace be upon him. Similarly the
names of the Companions of the Prophet (sws) are followed by
the abbreviated form of the formula radd ī allāhu ta‘ālā
‘anhu/‘anhum which means may Allāh be pleased with
him/them. The word Companion/s with a capital C denotes the
Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws).
I wish to thank all my teachers and friends who helped me
accomplish this translation and edit and improve it. Though I
cannot mention them all, I feel obliged to thank my friends
Jhangeer Hanif, Ronnie Hasan and Junaid Hasan for reviewing the
translation and editing and forwarding important suggestions. My
thanks are also due to ‘Azīm Ayūb and all the support staff of al-
Mawrid who contributed towards making this book publishable.
Tariq Mahmood Hashmi

Al-Mawrid Lahore
July 2009
_____________
Preface
Under God’s blessing, I have always cherished great interest in

the Qur’ān as well as the Hadīth. After the death of Imām Farāhī,
I felt a strong desire to learn the Hadīth from an expert in the
discipline the way I learnt the Qur’ān from a master of the
Qur’ānic sciences. The Almighty fulfilled this desire of mine.
Thus, shortly afterwards, a great scholar of the prophetic hadīth,
Mawlānā ‘Abdul Rahmān Mubārakpurī concluded his teaching
and writing services and settled in his hometown, Mubārakpur,
situated at a distance of mere two miles from my native town,
A‘zamgarh. I availed myself of this opportunity and immediately
went to him. I requested him to let me benefit from his
knowledge and teach me ahādīth of the Prophet (sws).
The Mawlānā probably knew that I, being a graduate of
Madrasah al-Islāh, had been trained by Imām Farāhī in the
Islamic Sciences. He, therefore, said: “You have already learnt a
great deal. What is the need of learning more?” He was ready to
grant me a formal certificate if I so desired. This was indeed a
great honour for me. I, however, intended to learn ahādīth. I did
not seek a formal certificate. I, therefore, stated that I was a
humble student who did not have the courage to be adorned with
such kingly crowns and that I only needed to learn how to
properly study and understand the prophetic hadīth. Having
heard this request, he paused for a moment and then said: “In this
case I will teach you the book of your choice.” Considering that
he had taught and written a commentary of Sahīh of Tirmidhī, I
requested him to instruct me in the same work. He consented to
my request and handed me an autographed copy of his
commentary of the book.
I started studying Sahīh of Tirmidhī from the very next day. It
was the blessed month of Ramadān. As I stated earlier, his home
was only a couple of miles from my town. I walked to his house
every morning and returned in the evening. During the night, I
would study Sahīh of Tirmidhī in the light of his commentary on
it. During the day, I would spend about two to three hours
reading out the book to the Mawlānā. This exercise usually
exhausted me completely but my teacher, in spite of his old age,
never showed even a slightest fatigue. May God bless his resting
place and raise his status in the afterlife.
I have not narrated this story to express my relationship to this
great scholar. Rather I intend to express my interest in this
exalted discipline. The above mentioned episode dates back to
the first half of the year 1932. Decades have passed since. I have
gone through good and bad times. I have cherished different
academic engagements during all this time. However, besides
carrying out other tasks, I have been constantly serving the
prophetic hadīth. This service has not been a ritualistic one. I
have, on the contrary, pursued a very noble cause.
I have believed for a long time that it is not possible for our
traditional scholars to confront the challenges facing our religion
today. To render this service, only those have to take up the field
who are well acquainted with the poisonous modern thought and
philosophy, and at the same time, are expert physicians of the
remedy of the evil, thorough knowledge of the Qur’ān and the
Hadīth. But the question is: where do we have to look for such
people? The institutions that produce scholars in this country be
they modern or traditional are barren for this purpose. I believe
that the first and foremost step towards remedying this evil is to
abrogate the parallel education system. A single, unified education
system should be introduced, combining the modern and
traditional education systems. This new system should not include,
to any degree, the religious disciplines merely as blessings, but, on
the contrary, the philosophy and core teachings of the Qur’ān must
run through the entire system as its life-blood. This task, however,
cannot be undertaken and accomplished by individuals alone and
lies within the realm of the government. Ordinary people like me
cannot do anything but choose a few able graduates from the same
system and guide them to this noble discipline, lead them through
a process of refinement and growth and enable them to take the
teachings and philosophy of the Qur’ān to the world.
Pursuing this purpose, I focused on two things. First, I started
academic and research lectures (dars) on the Qur’ān. I also
planned a commentary on the Qur’ān based on the coherence in
the Book and the corroboratory evidence from its parallels so that
the Qur’ānic wisdom and philosophy is brought to the readers
and their hearts and minds are satisfied.
Second, I started, in parallel, academic and research lectures on
the second source of religious knowledge in Islam, the Hadīth. In
the beginning, I taught Sahīh of Muslim to the college students
who were interested in religious learning. Later, I gave lectures
on the text of Muwattā of Imām Mālik. Having finished that, I
have taken upon myself a lecture series on Sahīh of Bukhārī as
well and quite a number of intelligent and religious minded
students are regularly attending these lectures.
My work on the Qur’ānic commentary was, with the help of
God, completed in the latter part of 1980.This nine-volume
commentary titled Tadabbur-i Qur’ān has been published. Its
initial effects indicate that it will, God willing, fulfil the purpose
it was written for. As for my work on the Hadīth, it is still
confined to lectures. Some friends, however, are trying to get my
lectures on Muwattā transcribed and then compiled and prepared
for publication. If God wills, this work will soon be
accomplished. For the compiled work, I have already had a
lecture recorded to be formed into the introduction to the book.
Mr. Mājid Khāwar, my dear fellow, has transcribed and compiled
it in the form of a manuscript. There is a great difference
between a spoken and a written word. It is not easy to transcribe
any speech and then produce it in the book form. I have gone
through the manuscript and have realized that the readers may
find it deficient in terms of arrangement and order, brevity and
explanation, and beauty of expression. However, as far as the
basic message is concerned, it has been sufficiently preserved
and duly conveyed. This last element is the real purpose which
must be met. The fine points and beauty of discourse is a
secondary element. Readers are encouraged not to attach more
than due share of significance to these things.
In this booklet, I have explained all such principles of
understanding ahādīth which I believe are fundamental in
determining the reliability or weakness of the traditions as well
as understanding the matn (text). I have myself followed these
principles in my explanation of the speech of the Prophet (sws)
of God. I have not introduced a single new thing in these. All
these principles have been taken from the primary and the most
reliable works by the great scholars of the science of hadīth
criticism. These principles are very natural and reasonable. No
rational being can deny or reject them. The task of those people
who are accustomed to studying only those ahādīth which
support their juristic (fiqh) viewpoint is always easy. Such people
may not possibly acknowledge the significance of this endeavour
and will fail to give any credence to these principles; they may
rather feel an aversion to this kind of work, I am afraid. On the
contrary, those who intend to gauge and scrutinize all the works
in the discipline and present it before the world as a source of
religious knowledge must have, in their hands, something that
can be acknowledged by all as a criterion.
I have followed these principles in understanding, interpreting,
and explaining to the people in my lectures on the major hadīth
works. My concerted efforts are now directed to communicate to
other people the good effects this line of study produces. I do not
know to what extent my desire will be fulfilled. Yet, however, I
am confident in that my efforts are directed at serving the
prophetic hadīth. I will not be, God willing, deprived of the due
reward in the long run.
I must now state that if a scholar points out any errors in the
present work, I shall amend and correct it. I will gratefully
receive such suggestions. However, I am not interested in the
comments of those who toe the line of their guides. They profess
much love and care for the prophetic tradition but never serve it
properly and never devote time for it. Their only academic
treasure in the field of the hadīth studies is what they have heard
from their teachers for which their sectarian brothers are ready to
die. Such people come up with criticism but their reviews are
always devoid of academic strength. I do not have time to read
and respond to their criticism.
I finish this preface by expressing my gratitude to the Almighty
Allah, the Lord of the worlds.
Amīn Ahsan Islāhī

Lahore
February 27. 1989
_____________
Chapter 1
Difference Between Hadīth and Sunnah
Generally people take hadīth and sunnah as synonymous terms.

This is not a correct impression for there is a great difference
between these two terms. Hadīth and Sunnah occupy distinct
status and different station in the religious knowledge. Taking
them as synonyms complicates our perception of the religious
knowledge. With a view to understanding ahādīth this difference
between the two terms is extremely important to understand.
1.1 Hadīth
The term hadīth is used to denote a saying, act or tacit
approval, validly or invalidly, ascribed to the Prophet (sws).
The muhaddithūn (experts in the science of hadīth criticism)
also use the term taqrīr for tacit approvals. It means that, in the
presence of the Prophet (sws), a believer did something, which
the Prophet (sws) noticed but did not disapprove or condemn.
Thus, the act done by a believer acquired tacit approval from the
Prophet (sws).
The muhaddithūn use another term khabar for a hadīth. It is
commonly acknowledged that khabar can be true or false. The
scholars of the science of hadīth criticism hold that a khabar and,
therefore, a hadīth can be a true report or a concoction. It is on the
basis of this premise that the Muslim scholars hold that a hadīth
offers a zannī (inconclusive/probably true) evidence. It is as
though a hadīth may have many possibilities on the plane of
reliability. It can be sahīh,1 hasan,2 dha‘īf,3 mawdū‘4 and maqlūb5.
For obvious reasons, each of these kinds will be treated differently.
They will be given different weight as the source text.
1.2 Types of Khabar

The muhaddithūn divide the hadīth/khabar in two kinds,
khabar-i mutawātir and khabar-i wāhid.
1.2.1 Khabar-i Mutawātir

The author of al-Kifāyah fī ‘ilm al-Riwāyah, Khatīb Baghdādī,
has defined the Mutawātir report as follows:
A mutawātir hadīth is reported by such a large number of

narrators that cannot be perceived to have jointly forged and
narrated a tradition about an issue without a compelling force.6
Although the term khabar-i mutawātir is in vogue; what it

denotes does not exist. Sometimes a hadīth is believed to be
khabar-i mash-hūr. But a little research reveals that it has been
transmitted by a single narrator in each of first three layers in the
1
. A sahīh hadīth is transmitted through an unbroken chain of
narrators all of whom are of sound character and memory. Such a
hadīth should not clash with a more reliable report and must not suffer
from any other hidden defect. (Mahmūd Tahhān, Taysīr Mustalih al-
Hadīth, (Lahore: Islamic Publishing House, n.d.), 33.
2
. A hasan hadīth is transmitted through an unbroken chain of
narrators all of whom are of sound character but weak memory. This
hadīth should not clash with a more reliable report and must not suffer
from any other hidden defect. (Ibid., 45)
3
. A da‘īf hadīth is that which cannot gain the status of hasan because
it lacks one or more elements of a hasan hadīth. (For example, if the
narrator is not of sound memory and sound character, or if there is a
hidden fault in the narrative or if the chain of narrators is broken).
(Ibid., 62)
4
. A mawdū‘ hadīth is one that is fabricated and wrongly ascribed to
the Holy Prophet (sws). (Ibid., 88)
5
. It is that hadīth, in two different narrations of which the names of
narrators have been changed.
6
. I have referred to this work by Khatīb considering that it is a major
work in the field. For my personal study, I have read through all the
relevant sources but after having gone through all of them, I can say
that this is the most important work in this discipline. As far as I could
gather, the other scholars also hold a similar opinion about it. (Author)
isnād. Such narratives are reported by a large number of
reporters in the third or fourth layer. Similarly, in my opinion, all
such narratives which are usually termed as khabar-i mutawātir
should be thoroughly investigated. If a thorough and exhaustive
survey proves them to be mutawātir, they should be taken as
such; but if they fail the test, they must not be fictitiously termed
as mutawātir any more. I must also emphasize the point that, in
my opinion, the Sunnah is mutawātir. However, it is mutawātir
in that it has been perpetually adhered to by each generation of
Muslims. This tawātur is not oral. This issue will fully be
explained later.
1.2.2 Khabar-i Wāhid

Khabar-i wāhid signifies a historical narrative that falls short of
yielding certain knowledge. Even if more than one person reports
the narrative, that does not make it certain and conclusive truth
except when the number of narrators reporting it grows to the
level that the possibility of their consensus on forging a lie is
perfectly removed. Most of the hadīth literature consists of
individual isolated narratives.
1.3 Categories of Ahādīth according to Authenticity

Khatīb Baghdādī divides the individual narratives in the
following categories, according to their epistemic value:
• ahādīth which are clearly genuine and acceptable.

• ahādīth which are clear fabrications.
• ahādīth whose status is not clear.
An explanation of all three follows:
1.3.1 Genuine and Acceptable Ahādīth

According to Khatīb Baghdādī, the narratives of the following
qualities belong to the first category:
• The narratives that contain reports testified by the “human

intellect” (mimmā tadullu al-‘uqūl ‘alā mūjabihī) and that
which are aligned with common sense.
• The narratives that are a corollary of the Qur’ānic text and
the Sunnah.
• The narratives that have been received as acceptable by the
ummah as a whole.
This should be appreciated that “the acceptance of the ummah”

means only the acceptance by the part of the ummah that has
remained pure from the contaminations of religious innovations
and blind following. Thawbān (rta) narrates that the Prophet
(sws) said:
A group from among my ummah will always hold fast to the

truth. They shall not be harmed despite being abandoned by
some people. They will remain in this state (of steadfastness)
till God’s decree arrives. (Muslim, No: 1920)
1.3.2 Fabricated and Unacceptable Ahādīth

According to Khatīb, the second category of the narratives
ascribed to the Prophet (sws) consists of ahādīth of the following
characteristics:
• The narratives that offend reason.

• The narratives that contradict the Qur’ān and the Sunnah.
• The narratives that discuss issues of prime importance in the
religion which require absolute certainty. In such issues the
Almighty cuts all possibilities of excuse for the recipients.
They are left with no reasonable grounds to reject the
teachings reported to them on the ground of historical
authenticity. However, the individual narratives fail to
provide required certitude of the reported knowledge and
are not accepted.
• The individual narratives regarding issues which, by their
very nature, demand that they should have been reported by
a large number of people are also not acceptable.
According to the Hanafī jurists, in the issues of ‘umūm-i

balwā,7 the individual narratives carry no weight. In such issues
they prefer qiyās and ijtihād over this type of individual
narratives.
7
‘Umūm-i balwā are the issues which by nature attract attention of the
entire community. For example, the number and form of the Prayer
(salah) by its position in the religion requires that it should be received,
practiced and communicated by the entire generation. Such issues are
not left on the choice of few individuals.
1.3.3 Indeterminable Ahādīth

Narratives that give contradicting directives on a single issue
and make it difficult for us to determine the final command in
that regard form the third category.
While deciding on the applicability of the directives contained
in this type of ahādīth, only such narratives should be accepted
as valid which correspond to and accord with the wording of the
collated narratives, textual evidence from the Qur’ān and the
Sunnah.
1.4 The Sunnah

Literally the word sunnah means clear, well trodden, busy and
plain surfaced road. The Qur’ān has used this word to connote
the way God has always dealt with the nations. It says:
This is the way God has dealt with the people who passed
before you. God’s decision is always predestined. (Q 33:38)
Do they look for anything other than God’s way of dealing

with the people of old? But you will never find any change in
the way of God; nor will you find that God’s way will turn
off. (Q 35:43)
The word sunnah in the discussion of the sources of religion,

denotes the practice of the Prophet (sws) that he taught and
practically instituted as a teacher of the sharī‘ah and the best
exemplar. This practice is to be adhered to in fulfilling the divine
injunctions, carrying out religious rites and moulding life in
accord with the will of God. To institutute these practices was,
the Qur’ān states, a part of the Prophet’s responsibility as a
Messenger of God:
Verily God has shown grace to the believers by sending to

them a messenger of their own who recites to them His
verses, and purifies them, and teaches them the law and the
wisdom; although before his advent they were in manifest
error. (Q 3:164)
You have indeed in the life of the Messenger of God the best
example; for those who expect meeting God and the Last Day
and remember Him much. (Q 33:21)
The Prophet (sws) set the best example for us in every aspect of
life. He not only taught us all religious injunctions and etiquette –
that we need to learn and adopt – but also showed us the practice
of how to follow and carry out them.
The rejecters of the religious status and authority of the Sunnah
hold that the Prophet (sws) was not more than a mere postman
appointed to deliver the divine message. Their view is most
absurd and baseless. The Prophet (sws) was appointed not only
to communicate to the world the Book of God but also to purify
the souls and to teach them how to practice the sharī‘ah. His life
is the perfect model for the believers to emulate. It is only by
following his example that we can mould our life in accord with
the religion of Islam and the dictates of the faith.
1.5 Importance of the Sunnah

The teachings of Islam contained in the Qur’ān consist of core
guidance. Details and application of all the injunctions have not
been provided in the Book. These things have been left for the
Prophet (sws) to explain. The entire edifice of Islam is built on
the building blocks of the Sunnah of the Prophet (sws). The
Qur’ān, for example, only gives basic directives regarding the
ritual Prayer, fast, hajj, zakāh and other rites and rituals.
However, none of these directives have been explained in any
detail in the Book. So much so we do not find even necessary
details regarding, for example, timings and units of the ritual
prayer – the most important religious injunction. The case of
other worship rituals and directives is no different. For example,
the directive to cut the hands of a convicted thief is found in the
Qur’ān. Yet we do not know what value of the stolen item
renders the theft punishable. Where do we cut the hand from?
Questions like these have been explained through the tongue of
the Prophet (sws) and his practice. If we set aside the Sunnah we
will only be left with principal guidance of the Qur’ān and will
remain ignorant as to how they are to be practiced, as it happened
with the followers of the religion of Abraham, the so-called
hanīfs. It is reported that they would sit against the walls of the
Ka‘bah and address God saying: “O Lord, we do not know how
to worship You. We would worship You the prescribed way had
8
we known it.”
This shows that the Qur’ān can only be clarified and explained
with the help of the Sunnah. This is precisely for the same reason
the Prophet (sws) said:
Beware, I have been granted the Qur’ān and with it something

similar to it. (Abū Dāwūd, No: 4604)
This proves that following the Sunnah is as necessary as the

Qur’ān. God Almighty sent the Prophet (sws) to make the Qur’ān
clear. He is the best exemplar who sets paradigmatic example of
the Qur’ānic teachings. He has beautifully fulfilled this function.
So this explains that the Sunnah is to the Qur’ān as body is to
soul. Teachings of the Qur’ān are a soul whose observable form
is the Sunnah. Both constitute the religion of Islam. Absence of
either disfigures the religion and fells the edifice of Islam.
1.6 Mutual Harmony of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah

The Sunnah and the holy Qur’ān are not bound in an accidental
interrelation. Their interconnection, on the contrary, is natural
and logical. Human life involves innumerable issues in its
diverse spheres which cannot be exhaustively recorded in a
single book. It requires a whole library of books to record even a
part of these issues.
Many things, for example, cannot be explained verbally. They
require practical example. Without practical form and example,
they do not provide concrete and observable guidance. Such
issues, as call for a practical manifestation, cannot even be
communicated verbally. Therefore, the holy Prophet (sws) set
practical examples in order to clarify them. After the demise of
the Prophet (sws), this responsibility was transferred to his
Companions (rta). Later, the righteous and pious people of the
ummah, the witnesses to God on earth, fulfilled this duty. It is
incumbent upon the piety and all those who rise to work for the
religion of God to carefully observe the Sunnah themselves
including things that are not seemingly very important and to
teach the generality to adhere to them.
1.7 Nature and Scope of the Sunnah

8
. I have not been able to find the source of this saying attributed to
the hanīfs.
The Sunnah relates only to the practical aspects of human life.
It deals only with the religious practices. Muslim beliefs, history
and occasion of revelation of the Qur’ānic verses do not form the
Sunnah.
1.8 The Sunnah is not based on Ahādīth

The Sunnah is not based on ahādīth which can either be true or
false. The Sunnah, on the contrary, is based on the perpetual
practice of the ummah. All the Muslim generations, from the
Prophet (sws) to us, have followed it without a break.
Historicity of the Qur’ān is established by its generality-to-
generality transmission as the word of mouth. The Book has been
first transferred from the Prophet (sws) to the generation of his
Companions (rta) who passed it on to the next generation with
consensus. This process of continuous transmission of the Qur’ān
has continued in each generation of the Muslim ummah till it has
reached us. The Sunnah too has been transmitted through
generality-to-generality by practical adherence of the entire
generation in each successive layer. We have, for example, not
adopted Prayer and hajj because we have learnt from some
individual narrators (āhād) that the Prophet (sws) practiced and
taught these worship rituals. We have, on the contrary, followed
these practices because the Prophet (sws) performed and instituted
them in the generation of the Companions (rta). The successors to
the Companions (rta) learnt these from the Companions (rta) and
the coming generation learnt from the successors, so on and so
forth, till these reached us. The corroboratory evidence for these
practices, found in the major hadīth works, is an additional support
for them. If a hadīth narrative concerning a practice, current
among Muslims, accords with the practice of the ummah, that is
acceptable. If, however, it contradicts any established practice then
the mutawātir practice of the ummah shall prevail. However, we
will try to reinterpret the hadīth contradicting the Sunnah so as it is
made in accord with the practice of the ummah. If we fail to
reconcile between the Sunnah and a particular hadīth, in any way,
we have to abandon the individual narrative for the agreed upon
concurrent practice. We prefer the Sunnah over ahādīth because
the isolated hadīth reports are only probably true. The Sunnah, on
the contrary, is absolutely true and certain source of religious
knowledge.
This fact about the historicity of the Hadīth was clear on the
Mālikī (Imām Mālik and his followers) scholars. They preferred
the practice of the people of Madīnah (‘amal ahl al-Madīnah)
over individual ahādīth. They believed that the practice of the
community of the people of Madīnah is absolutely certain. They
usually introduce such a practice as follows: al-sunnatu ‘indanā
hākadhā (the established practice with us is this). The followers
of Imām Abū Hanīfah do not attach much importance to the
individual narratives on this very basis either.
The perpetual practical adherence of the ummah in this context
is based on the practice of the Prophet (sws), the Rightly Guided
Caliphs (khulafā’ al-rāshidūn), and the Companions (rta) as a
community. The Prophet (sws) said:
It is upon you to follow my practice and that of the Rightly

Guided Caliphs. (Ibn Mājah, No: 42)
The Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws) were the first

recipient of the religion and the first who practiced the religious
teachings. They received the religion from the Prophet (sws) and
communicated it to the world. That is why their practice is
accepted and acknowledged as based on the Prophet (sws). Herds
of people that join together to innovate practices and observe them
as religious rites, in the present times, are innovators. The Prophet
(sws) condemned falsehood, fabrication and bid‘ah (innovation)
introduced into the religion as waywardness leading to Hell.
1.9 A Question to the Munkirīn-i Sunnah9

Recently a group of people have emerged who admit authority of
the Qur’ān and reject the authority of the Sunnah. Their view as
well as the logic behind it is incomprehensible. What has made the
Qur’ān absolutely authentic is that it has reached us through
generality-to-generality as the word of mouth (tawātur-i qawlī).
Historical authenticity of the Sunnah is established by a similar
process, the practical adherence and perpetual practice of the entire
generations from the Prophet (sws) to us (tawātur-i ‘amalī). The
intermediary generations of the believers worked as vehicle for the
9
. These are a group of scholars who do not believe in the authenticity
of the Sunnah and hold that the Prophet (sws) could not give any
religious rulings in addition to the Qur’ān. In the Indian Subcontinent,
the most prominent upholders of this view are Ghulām Ahmad Pervēz,
Sayyid Ahmad Khān, Aslam Jērājpurī etc.
transmission of both of these sources. Having rejected the
authenticity of the Sunnah, the rejecters of the Sunnah, cannot
validly claim that the Qur’ān is the Book of God received from the
Prophet Muhammad (sws), for there is no difference between the
Qur’ān and the Sunnah as far as historical authenticity and the
vehicle of transmission from the Prophet (sws) to us is concerned.
It is, therefore, extremely important to grasp the difference
between the term hadīth and sunnah. Disregard for this
difference between the two sources has led many people to take
the entire corpus of the Sunnah as spurious. They rent asunder
the whole edifice of the religion when they noticed that a few
individual narratives failed to sustain historical investigation.
Initially the rejecters found faults with and cast doubts on the
hadīth literature. These doubts were then extended to the Sunnah
itself. This is in spite of the fact that the Qur’ān and the Sunnah
are equally authentic and the rejection of either entails negation
of the other.
Those alive to the history of the movement of rejection of the
Sunnah know that it originated in some questions over a few
unexplainable narratives. Later on, the scholars entered polemical
debates on the issue and, in the frenzy of hot debate for their
position, lost track of the difference between the Hadīth and
Sunnah. Neither the attackers realized what they were really felling
nor did the defenders were aware of what they were defending.
They were spending their energies in fighting undefined borders.
The debate became an end in itself. This unawareness of the truth
caused great harms to both the parties. Subsequently, the claim of
the rejecters bordered on the rejection of Islam itself. The defenders
of the authority and authenticity of the Hadīth, too, by forgetting
the difference between the two sources, exposed the Sunnah to
serious questions. They rendered the firm bases of the Sunnah
vulnerable to the attack of the rejecters.
1.10 Different Paradigmatic forms of a Single Practice

Many people are, likewise, not appreciative of the fact that
there could be more than one valid way of performing a single
religious practice. Different sunan (plural of sunnah) can be
instituted for a single religious issue. Owing to the failure to
appreciate this fact the followers of the Sunnah were divided into
different factions, all of which declared each other as rejecters of
the Sunnah. Had they viewed the matter justly, they would have
easily learnt that the holy Prophet (sws) could have introduced
different sunan regarding a single issue.
Many ahādīth show that at the occasion of the sermon of the
final hajj, the holy Prophet (sws) took a seat and received the
delegations from different tribes. People came to him and sought
his guidance regarding their performances of the hajj rituals. A
believer would explain that he had performed a certain hajj ritual
in a particular way. The Prophet (sws) would tell him that there
was nothing wrong (lā haraj). Still another person would inquire
about the status of his method of performing the same ritual
which would be different. The Prophet (sws) would tell him that
his method of performance was also correct and valid. He did not
incur any sin. People continued swarming to him and seeking his
decision on the ways they performed certain rituals. The Prophet
(sws) invariably approved the practice of all and did not, as far as
I know, reject the action reported by any pilgrim.
This shows that all of these pilgrims practiced the hajj rituals
differently. Yet the Prophet (sws) approved of their way of
performance. Their acts fell within the acceptable Sunnah. This
means that it is acceptable to perform a religious obligation
differently while observing the spirit and essence of the ritual or
practice. It cannot be termed deviance.
We know that ahādīth give different information regarding the
tashahhud (reciting certain supplications while sitting in the last
part of the Prayer). All ahādīth on this issue have been ascribed to
great Companions (rta) with extraordinary insight in the legal
matters. Most of these ahādīth prescribe different supplications for
the occasion of tashahhud. Yet, however, the essence and spirit of
all is the same. Let us suppose that someone adopts the wording
for the supplication reported by ‘Umar (rta) or Ibn-i ‘Umar (rta)
and does not recite what has been ascribed to ‘Ᾱ’ishah (rta).
Would it be appropriate to declare that he deviated from the
Sunnah? Certainly not! One can no doubt argue on the authenticity
of any of these ahādīth and one can validly declare that this
narrative is more authentic than that. One cannot, however, declare
any of these supplications a deviation from the Sunnah.
I believe the same is the case of loudly uttering the formula
’āmīn after reciting Sūrah al-Fātihah (Q 1) or on hearing the
imām complete the sūrah in the Prayer. Similar is the status of
folding one’s hands on the chest or letting them fall free in the
Prayer. There are ample indicators, rather evidences, proving
each an authentic sunnah. Owing to external factors, which
cannot be taken up here for want of brevity, some of these
practices got currency in certain cities while others were adopted
in some other cities and regions. We cannot exclude any of these
from the list of the acceptable normative sunan. One can, at best,
declare some of these are more stressed (mu’akkad) methods of
carrying out the relevant ritual. There is no point in rejecting any
of these methods for they cannot be validly declared a deviation
from normative Sunnah.
_____________
Chapter 2
Interrelation of the Qur’ān, the Sunnah and the Hadīth
The Qur’ān and the Hadīth and the Sunnah are interconnected.
Internally, the Sunnah and the Hadīth are a body to the soul – the
Qur’ān. Apparently, however, the Sunnah and the Hadīth provide
details to the compact Qur’ān: their interrelation is that of detail
and brevity. Both the Qur’ān and the Sunnah are equally
important as far as the question of practicing the religion is
concerned. We cannot separate the two. Following either is an
obligation of equal degree.
The Qur’ān marks the limits and outlines of the picture of
believers’ life pattern and specifies the boundaries. It leaves the
task of colouring and complementing the pattern for the Prophet
(sws): it is for the Sunnah to give concrete shape and provide
practical form to the believers’ life. The Qur’ānic teachings are,
therefore, confined to a comprehensive treatment of the principle
teachings of Islam. We do not find the requisite details and
specifics of any fundamental issue in the Book for which we
have to refer to the Sunnah and the Hadīth.
The Prayer is the most important worship ritual in Islam. The
place of the Prayer in the philosophical foundations of the
religion can be gleaned from the Qur’ān. The basic components
of this worship ritual as well as its relevance to human life too
have been thoroughly discussed in the Book. However, we rely
on the Sunnah and the Hadīth on the questions of the timings, the
form, the recitations and the status (in terms of obligatory and
optional) of the Prayer. The Qur’ān only refers to these things. It
does not detail them.
Same is the case with the other worship rituals, social affairs,
economic issues, political matters, and penal codes. We can form
an overall picture of the sharī‘ah directives concerning these
issues as they are mentioned in the Qur’ān. However, it is only
the Sunnah that colours and completes the picture. This is not
applicable to each and every directive of the Qur’ān. It would be
hard to say that we need to turn to the Sunnah in an effort to
understand all the directives contained in the Qur’ān. It is,
nevertheless, clear that if any aspect of a directive requires
further examination then the only helpful source is the Hadīth
and the Sunnah.
2.1 Muhammad (sws) as Teacher of the Sharī‘ah

The Prophet (sws) did not carry out the task of filling out the
outline of life as an additional voluntary service. It was his
primary duty as the Messenger of God. His status as a teacher is
one of the fundamental aspects of his position as a Messenger of
God. This means that whatever he taught and told people is not
excluded from his duty as the Messenger nor is it of lesser status
than the Book. The Qur’ān clearly says that he was not a mere
reciter or communicator of the Book of God; he was a teacher of
the Book and its explicator:
It is He who sent to the unlettered people a messenger of their

own who recites to them His verses, and purifies them, and
teaches them the sharī‘ah and the wisdom; although before
his advent they were in manifest error. (Q 62:2)
The Prophet (sws) not only explicated the verses containing the
Divine directives but also explained the subtle points of hikmah
(wisdom) buried within the Book of God. The following hadīth
refers to this very quality of the Prophet (sws): “I have been
granted the Qur’ān and with it something similar to it.”10
The above discussions show that the Sunnah is equal to the
Qur’ān for it enjoys historical reliability of an equal degree. If the
Qur’ān has been orally transmitted through generality to
generality (tawātur-i qawlī), the Sunnah too has been handed
down, practically, through perpetual adherence of the ummah
with consensus (tawātur-i ‘amalī). We cannot grade and set a
preference for either and cannot characterize either with
relegation or elevation. Both sources are equally important when
it comes to the question of following the religion of Islam.
10
. Khatīb Baghdādī, Ahmad b. ‘Alī Abū Bakr, al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-
Riwāyah, (Hayderabad Deccan: Dā’irah al-Ma‘ārif al-‘Uthmāniyah,
1938), 8.
2.2 Genesis of the Extremist Positions on Authoritativeness of the
Hadīth
The foregoing discussion shows the natural interrelation
between the Qur’ān, the Hadīth and the Sunnah. However, during
the early history of Islam, narrating ahādīth was an extremely
popular activity. This popularity remained ever increasing. This
made many insincere people narrate ahādīth without
investigating the authenticity of the reports. This gave rise to a
huge number of weak ahādīth. Consequently some believers felt
disinclined to a ready acceptance of ahādīth. They publically
expressed their views regarding the traditions. They would ask
people to base their religious views on the Qur’ān only. Various
historical narratives detail such discussions. I would, however,
confine my discussion to one pertinent historical narrative. This
will help us understand how and when extreme positions in this
regard originated.
Hasan narrates that ‘Imrān b. Husayn was once sitting among

his Companions (rta). Someone said: “Do not talk of anything
other than the Qur’ān.” ‘Imrān b. Husayn asked [those
present]: “Bring this man closer to me.” The man came near
him. ‘Imrān said to him: “Suppose you are left only with the
Qur’ān. Do you find any information in the Book that
explains that the zuhr and ‘asr Prayers consist of four rak‘āt,
and maghrib of three and that you need to recite the Qur’ān in
the first two rak‘ah. Similarly, do you see anything in the
Qur’ān guiding us to circumambulate the Ka‘bah seven times
along with the circumambulation of the Safā and Marwah
[while performing hajj and ‘umrah]?” Then he said: “People
learn from us, lest you go astray.”11
Some other versions of this narrative are relatively fuller

detailing the incident further. According to these narratives
‘Imrān presented, as examples, some legal punishments and
asked his adversaries about their details in the Qur’ān.
At one end of the extreme, we see an aversion towards ahādīth.
In reaction to this stance, there stands another group of scholars
who showed lack of interest in the Qur’ān. They advocated
sticking to ahādīth in the extreme. Some of these people openly
11
. Ibid., 15.
declared that ahādīth had to be preferred over the Qur’ān.
Makhūl, in one of his famous saying, tells us: “The Qur’ān is
more in need of the Sunnah (ahwaj ’ilā al-sunnah) than the
Sunnah of the Qur’ān.”12
This means that, according to Makhūl, the Sunnah does not
depend on the Qur’ān more than the Qur’ān depends on it. This
view gives obvious preference to the Sunnah over the Qur’ān. It
is obviously the worst form of exaggeration. This view continued
to grow till the point when statements like the following were
issued: It has been reported that Yahyā b. Kathīr said: “The
Sunnah rules over the Qur’ān (qādiyah ‘alā al-kitāb) and the
Qur’ān does not rule over the Sunnah (qādiyan ‘alā al-sunnah).13
In other words, God forbid, the Prophet (sws) rules over Allah
and not the vice versa. One exaggeration no doubt leads to
another severer exaggeration; errors always spawn errors.
In fact when ahādīth became a dear commodity in the market,
people started presenting worthless statements as Prophetic
sayings. A group of scholars reacted to this situation and
expressed their disapproval of this practice. They found some
zealot followers of their view who, in turn, did not stop before
reaching at even worse exaggerations. This phenomenon left us
in the state where the Qur’ān and the Sunnah became two
opposing and mutually contradicting sources.
One wonders what is the use of the Sunnah in the absence of
the Qur’ān? What would be its foundations? We know that the
Sunnah is grounded in the Qur’ān. The edifice of the Sunnah
cannot be erected in the absence of the Qur’ān, its foundation.
The truth of the matter is that both the Sunnah and the Qur’ān are
interrelated. The Sunnah is to the Qur’ān as the building is to the
foundation or as body is to soul. Another kind of interrelation
between the two is that of brevity (the Qur’ān) and detail (the
Sunnah). Both spring from the same source, are interdependent
and equally indispensable for the believers.
2.3 Ahādīth and the Sunnah cannot abrogate the Qur’ān

God has mercifully continued raising people in the ummah who
have shown the right path to the believers guiding them out of
the traps of exaggerating squabblers. When this dispute over the
12
. Ibid., 14.
13
. Ibid.
interrelation of the Qur’ān and the Hadīth arose, the Almighty
blessed some individuals with the power to protect and promote a
balanced approach. The man who fulfilled this duty in a most
beautiful manner is Ahmad b. Hanbal, the greatest servant of the
discipline who excelled in the knowledge of the Prophetic
traditions. When such exaggerations regarding the status of the
Sunnah, in relation to the Qur’ān, were brought to his notice, he
explained the correct view. Fadl b. Ziyād reports:
I heard Ahmad b. Hanbal respond to a question about the

hadīth14 which says that the Sunnah overrules the Qur’ān in
the following words: “I dare not say so. However, the Sunnah
explicates the Book, defines and explains it.”15
Ahmad b. Hanbal believes that the Sunnah explicates, explains

and defines the Qur’ān. A hadīth or a sunnah can never abrogate
the Qur’ān. To him, the importance of the Sunnah and the Hadīth
is recognized. It cannot be denied by a believer. However, the
claim that they overrule the Qur’ān is absolutely baseless.
As for ahādīth, they lack soundness in so many ways that they
cannot abrogate a conclusive source such as the Qur’ān. The
belief that they can abrogate the Qur’ān is absolutely against
reason and intellect. I have referred to the inherent weakness
involved in the transmission of ahādīth in our discussion on the
difference between the Hadīth and the Sunnah. This discussion
suffices as a referent and repetition would be redundant.
The Sunnah, though not weak in those aspects, too cannot
abrogate the Qur’ān. The Messenger of God was never allowed
even to introduce the slightest change in the Qur’ānic text. We
learn from the history of the Prophetic struggle that the Quraysh
refused to accept and believe in the Qur’ān until the Prophet
(sws) altered it for them. The Prophet (sws) was commanded by
God to respond to this demand in the following words:
Tell them it is not my right to change it on my own accord. (Q

10:15)
14
. This can at best refer to the statement ascribed to Yahyā b. Kathīr.
V
There is no such hVadīth which may be directly traced back to the
Prophet (sws). (Author)
15
. Ibid., 15.
The Qur’ān is the word of God. None other than the author can
change and alter it. There are no doubt, instances of abrogation in
the Book. However, all the changes made in the directives of the
Book were introduced by the Author Himself. Both the
abrogating and the abrogated verses are part of the Qur’ān. The
Messenger was obliged by God to perfectly communicate to the
people what was given to him, without altering it. He was
obligated to explain to the believers whatever part required an
explanation. He could not make the slightest change possible in
it. He had no right to change it in spite of all of mankind. If the
Messenger is not given the right to alter the word of God, how
can we validly give a hadīth ascribed to him or a sunnah
attributed to him the right to abrogate the Book.
2.4 Can a Sunnah or a Hadīth specify a General Command of the

Book?
Can a hadīth or a sunnah specify and restrict the application of
a Qur’ānic verse or not, is another question. By specification
(takhsīs), we mean restricting application of a general command
(mutlaq) of the Book of God in any degree. This question calls
for a detailed answer which follows:
i. The specifications affected by ahādīth can be of many
degrees and kinds. A hadīth, in some cases, specifies the
application of a general command of the Qur’ān, excluding its
application to a matter which the text itself excludes, though
subtly. In such cases, therefore, ignoring the subtle indications
and including the unintended matter in the application would not
be in accord with the principles of interpretation. It would entail
negation of the implied meaning and intent of the text. Thus this
type of specification is not only possible but desirable. Not only a
hadīth and a sunnah but also independent reasoning and analogy
can be used to specify the general application of the verses in
such cases.
ii. If, however, a hadīth restricts the application of the Qur’ānic
directive and excludes the intended meaning, noticeably implied
in the text, this specification would in fact be a new directive
replacing the original one. Adopting such a hadīth then would
mean that we consider the new directive to be more forceful than
the clear Qur’ānic injunction. It would not be an instance of
simple specification. It would be a clear example of abrogation.
We have already observed that it is not possible for even the
Messenger of God to cancel the directives of the Qur’ān. This
right then cannot be given to the ahādīth ascribed to him.
I intend to further illustrate this point with the help of an
example. The Qur’ān commands that the hands of a thief be cut
off. The Prophet (sws) said that if someone steals a thing worth
less than a quarter of a dīnār, then his hands should not be cut.
This exemplifies the first type of specification mentioned above.
We see this hadīth affects the application of the verse
commanding cutting off hands of the thief. The narrative states
that only such thieves may be punished by cutting their hands
who steal more than a quarter of a dīnār. The related Qur’ānic
directive follows:
Cut the hands of the thief – man (al-sāriq) or woman (al-

sāriqah) – in recompense to what they earned and as an
exemplary punishment from God. (Q 5:38)
The narrative that restricts its application to a certain type of

thieves follows:
The hands of the thief may only be cut if he has stolen

something worth at least a quarter of a dīnār. (Abū Dāwūd,
No: 4384)
The verse gives a general command. It requires cutting the

hands of the thief (sāriq). The hadīth does not allow us to apply
the directive to thieves in general. It states that a thief may only
be punished if he steals things worth at least equal to a quarter of
a dīnār. This specification is, indeed, an explanation of the
correct and intended meaning of the word al-sāriq (thief). The
word al-sāriq is not applied to the one who picks up insignificant
items. Sarqah (theft), according to the conventions of the Arabic
language, is applied to stealing a secured and guarded asset of
considerable value. This hadīth offers a valid explanation of the
original meaning of the word. This specification makes the true
intention of the author clear and fixes and defines it. It removes
the possibility of apparent ambiguity in the words of the verse.
This is an example of valid takhsīs (specification).
‘Umar (rta), the second caliph, specified the application of this
general command. He exercised personal reasoning and analogy
and suspended the application of the directive during the period
of drought. He argued that, in such a situation, one might be
compelled to commit theft out of irresistible want. This supports
my understanding of the issue. I have held earlier that such a
specification can be exercised by any mujtahid (jurist). This kind
of specification will be equal to only a directive reached at
through ijtihād. However, it must remain clear that the ijtihād
reached by one of the Rightly Guided Caliphs holds great
importance in the religion.
The truth of the matter is that every general statement contains
natural restrictions and specifications which are there ab initio.
Take for example the verse of inheritance. The Almighty says:
Allah enjoins you concerning your children that the male shall
have the equal of the portion of two females; if there are more
than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what the
deceased has left, and if there is one, she shall have the half;
and as for his parents, each of them shall have the sixth of
what he has left if he has a child, but if he has no child and
(only) his two parents inherit him, then his mother shall have
the third; but if he has brothers and sisters, then his mother
shall have the sixth after the payment of a bequest he may
have bequeathed or a debt. You do not know which of your
parents and your children is nearer to you in usefulness. This
is an ordinance from Allah: Surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.
(Q 4:11)
The general nature of the verse demands that every father

inherits property from his sons and every son inherits property
from his father. However, there is a general specification implied
in it. Thus, the difference in the religion of the deceased
father/son or the heir son/father would remove the general nature
of the directive. The difference in religious affiliation of the heir
and the deceased obstructs the transfer of property as inheritance
to the heir. The Prophet (sws) has expressed this specification in
the following words:
A believer shall not inherit from a disbeliever; nor shall a

disbeliever from a believer.”16
General application of the Divine command regarding the

16
. Ibid., 13.
punishment of cutting off hands of the thief is of the same nature.
The relevant Qur’ānic verse apparently commands that the hands
of every thief shall be cut off. It does not clearly require that the
age and social and mental status of the accused and nature of the
theft etc. are to be considered, while implementing the command.
Yet, however, the implicit specification in this command of
general nature is that the thief who is to get this punishment must
be a mature man of sound mental health. Mentally ill persons, for
example, cannot be punished. If someone is compelled by sheer
need for necessities of life and commits theft, he cannot be
punished. Similarly, the value of stolen things should also be
assessed. Only the theft of a significant item should be punished.
All these are taken as ab initio qualifications. The jurists
(fuqahā) and the Prophetic traditions only make them more
explicit for us.
Another example of specification, rather of abrogation, relates
to the punishment of adulterers mentioned in the Qur’ānic verse
(Q 24:2) commonly referred to as the verse of flogging. Many
scholars, based on some ahādīth, restrict the application of the
prescribed punishment to the unmarried offenders. The case of
the married adulterers, it is held, has been stipulated in a different
and severer punishment17 independent of this Qur’ānic
injunction. The wording of the verse, however, does not contain
a slightest clue to this discrimination between the married and the
unmarried criminals. The verse reads:
Al-zānī and al-zāniyah, flog each one of them with a hundred

stripes. (Q 24:2)
The words al-zānī and al-zāniyah do not admit of any

qualification. We cannot, therefore, exclude married criminals
from the injunction while remaining true to the words of the
verse. The verse clearly includes both married as well as
unmarried zānīs. In the Arabic language, zinā is applied to the
sexual intercourse committed out of wedlock by married as well
as unmarried persons. The necessary elements of the definition of
the word zinā apply both to the married and unmarried offenders.
Besides, there is no inherent qualification found in this context as
is the case with the definition and application of the word sarqah
17
. It is held that only the married zānīs have to be stoned to death.
(theft) discussed above. There is no textual indication attached
with the directive restricting the application of the command to
unmarried people only. Therefore, we cannot say that married
people have to be given a separate punishment, of stoning to
death. This is not an instance of specification. It is rather a clear
and explicit example of abrogation. We have already seen that no
sunnah or hadīth can abrogate the Qur’ān.
If we try to understand the genesis of this misinterpretation and
study the issue in the hadīth literature we learn that the Prophet
(sws) extensively scrutinized the case of zinā involving Mā’iz
Aslamī. He sought minute and specific details and asked very
specific questions regarding the act. He was so direct that the
jurists, based on this careful scrutiny and vigorous investigation
by the Prophet (sws), could conclude that a judge may use naked,
direct and immodest expressions while questioning the accused. I
believe that this extensive questioning was done to remove the
possibility of using the term in its general sense. It helps a judge
to determine that the accused has really committed sexual
intercourse, something that merits the prescribed punishment.
This scrutiny and investigation into the nature of the act was not
carried out to determine the marital status of the offender.
The jurists commonly hold that in the case of a valid instance
of abrogation, the abrogator and the abrogated verses occur in
succession, i.e., both the injunctions are not casually scattered in
the Scripture. This serves to explain that the textual evidences,
indicating that a directive is abrogated by a succeeding one, are
put beside the abrogated command. They co-occur with the
command from its inception. If something is purported to be an
abrogator, without the support of such clear co-occurring
indicators, then that is not an instance of specification but of
abrogation. The conditions to be fulfilled in a valid instance of
abrogation in the Qur’ān have been sufficiently explained in the
foregoing pages.
_____________
Chapter 3
Fundamental Principles of Understanding Ahādīth
We study and ponder over ahādīth to fully benefit from the

prophetic knowledge transmitted to the ummah in the form of
traditions. Proper investigation in and contemplation on ahādīth
requires that the researchers in this discipline follow certain
fundamental principles. If a researcher attempts studying ahādīth
ignoring these principles he will face perplexing questions at
every step in this exercise. He would, very likely, lose the
straight path. Those intending to steer clear of the danger of
losing the true prophetic knowledge will find the following
principles helpful in avoiding these dangers. Those taking help
from these principles will find the road to understanding ahādīth
quite easy.
There are five fundamental principles of understanding ahādīth.
A detailed discussion on each follows.
3.1 The Qur’ān is the Measure of Truth

The first and the foremost principle is that the Qur’ān is the real
measure of truth regarding ahādīth. In fact, it is the only criterion
of truth in all religious matters. While discussing the
interrelationship between the Hadīth, the Sunnah and the Qur’ān,
I have explained that the Qur’ān and Hadīth are interrelated as
the root is related to its branches or a text is to its explanation.
The Qur’ān gives the core guidance forming the religion and the
sharī‘ah. This Qur’ānic guidance is the basis and foundation of
the religion while ahādīth explain and detail it.
The Qur’ān has many characteristics. It has many names and
attributes of which one name, given to it by the Almighty
Himself, is mīzān (the criterion/measure). The Qur’ān is the
measure of judgment. This means that it works as a judgment
over the differences and disputes between the people. It
establishes the truth firm and makes it distinct from the untruth.
This is the greatest purpose the Qur’ān was revealed to fulfil. It is
only the Qur’ān which measures the ideas and views in the
divine scale and decides over the validity of what people ascribe
to God. It determines what part of the current religious ideas is
the truth from God and what part of these is a human addition
mixed with the pure divine guidance. The Qur’ān says:
It is God Who has revealed the Book with decisive truth, and
the balance (al-mīzān). (Q 42:17)
Certainly We sent our messengers with clear arguments, and

sent down with them the Book and the balance (mīzān) that
men may conduct themselves with equity. (Q 57:25)
Considering this very quality of the Qur’ān, it has been given

the name muhaymin (guardian/criterion). In order to establish
justice and equity, we need a balance and a criterion. Almighty
God has referred to these two qualities of the Qur’ān in the
following verse as well:
And to you we have revealed the Book with the truth, in

confirmation of the [prophesies of] the earlier Scriptures, and
a criterion (muhayman) over it. So judge between them by
that which God has revealed, and do not follow their desires
setting aside the truth which has come to you. (Q 5:48)
Everything concerning the religion and the sharī‘ah has to be

measured by this criterion. This is a general principle which
covers all the religious matters and sources. When we find a
hadīth which goes against the religion and admits of doubt we
have to measure it by the Qur’ān, for the Book rules over it.
Someone may consider ahādīth independent of the measure of
the Qur’ān. He may posit that it is not subject to the Qur’ān and
it is a judge for itself. He would, however, be forced to adopt as
the part of the religion even the narratives which clearly
contradict the Qur’ānic teachings. He would be including in the
religion that which does not belong to it.
I believe that every such hadīth as is proved unsound when
measured on the scale of the Qur’ān, is either a fabrication or a
distortion. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us to keep the religion
of God safe from the onslaught of such narratives. It is
unperceivable, on the scale of reason as well as revelation, that
the Messenger (sws) negates or contradicts the commands of the
Almighty God. The scholars of the religious sciences
unanimously hold that any hadīth that contradicts the Qur’ān is a
munkar narrative. It has to be rejected. I quote the leader of the
muhaddithūn and the greatest servant of the Prophetic tradition,
Imām Ahmad b. Hanbal in this regard. Fadl b. Ziyād reports:
I heard Ahmad b. Hanbal respond to a question regarding the

traditions which say that the Sunnah overrules the Qur’ān
(qādiyatan ‘alā al-Qur’ān) in the following words: “I do not
dare say that. However, the Sunnah explicates the Book,
defines and explains it.18
This means that, according to him, no hadīth can abrogate the

Qur’ān. We acknowledge the status of ahādīth. We do not deny
it. However, we hold that the claim that it overrules the Qur’ān is
baseless.
3.2 Collating the Narratives on a Single Topic

Just like the Qur’ān, ahādīth too have an overall order and
arrangement. We cannot properly understand and interpret a
hadīth without considering the overall structure of ahādīth. The
second most important principle of understanding ahādīth is that
every hadīth has to be considered a part of the collective system
of the narratives. A part, it is clear, has to be in accord with the
overall structure of the whole. Every hadīth that is not in
assonance with the overall structure of ahādīth should be
rejected. In solving the problems of opposing and mutually
contradicting ahādīth, the collective order of ahādīth will be of
immense help to us.
Examples of such isolated inordinations are abundant in the
statements of the Sufis. They present their statements as ahādīth
and ascribe them to the Prophet (sws) even though these
statements neither correspond to the fundamental teachings of the
Qur’ān nor accord with the general prophetic teachings. Such
baseless traditions, though limited in number, have found their
way into the major hadīth works. It is extremely necessary to
analyse and separate them from the true prophetic knowledge.
3.3 Language of Ahādīth

The original language of the hadīth literature is the standard
18
. Ibid., 15.
Classical Arabic even though, unlike the Qur’ān, most of ahādīth
have not been transmitted verbatim; ideas have been transmitted
rather than words. Nonetheless, the language of ahādīth
maintains a high standard. The quality of the language of ahādīth
is superior to many other earlier sources. It is extremely
important to consider this aspect of the language of the prophetic
sayings while pondering over them. By the grace of God, there
are many hadīth collections. Recorded in an early period of oral
tradition, the language of ahādīth is nearer to that of the
prophetic times. Having acknowledged that language keeps
changing and evolving, we need to prefer the traditions whose
language is more approximate to that of the time of the Prophet
(sws) and the Companions (rta).
In the syntactic and morphological analysis of ahādīth, the
judgments of the expert grammarians, lexicographers and
acknowledged authorities in the field always prevail. Therefore,
while deciding on meanings of difficult words and explaining the
complex sentence structures, their interpretations and views have
to be preferred over one’s personal understanding.
For the serious student of the hadīth literature, expertise and
competence in the language spoken during the time of the
Prophet (sws) and the Companions (rta) as well as a taste and
flavour for this language are crucial. This can help him
differentiate the language of the prophetic time from that of the
later times. If a person, engaged in the hadīth study, fails to
understand this difference, it is very likely that he confuses non-
prophetic statements with ahādīth of the Prophet (sws). He can
even be led to accept the non-Qur’ānic words as the part of the
Book of God. A famous hadīth ascribed to ‘Umar (rta) claims
that the Qur’ān once included the verse al-shaykh wa al-
shaykhatu idhā zanayā farjumūhumā al-battata (When an old
man and old woman commit extramarital sex, stone them to
death). The truth of the matter is that, far from being part of a
verse of the Qur’ān, these words do not even match the prophetic
language. It is, at best, the language of a non-Arab jurist of the
later times.
3.4 Specification and Generalization, Situation and Context, and

Nature of Address
Understanding ahādīth requires proper understanding of the
instances of specification and generalization, situation and
context, and the nature of address. A proper understanding of the
instances of specification and generalization requires that, while
explaining the hadīth narratives, one appreciates where an
apparently general statement, actually, deals with a specific case.
Similarly, one has to appreciate the points in the text where a
seemingly specific command is used in a general sense.
Muhaddithūn have discussed these questions in detail. However,
this issue is very delicate and one has to remain alive to these
facts.
Likewise, understanding the hadīth literature requires that the
student is able to fully appreciate the implications of the textual
context as well as context of situation. This is extremely
important to understand. Failure to appreciate the proper textual
context as well as context of situation gives rise to grave and
complex questions leading to unending disputes. Take, for
example, the famous hadīth which says:
Leaders shall be from among the Quraysh. (Musnad Ahmad,

No: 19792)
The majority of the scholars of the third and the later

generations committed serious errors in determining the true
context of this hadīth. Literal interpretation of the narrative led
them to believe that only the Quraysh could validly rule the
Muslims. Evidently, this view puts Islam and Brahmanism on
equal ground as far as the political system is concerned. This
view clearly ignores that Islam is the first religion aiming to
purify the political systems from the evil of Brahmanism.
The primary cause of this error is that the scholars failed to
understand the proper context of this prophetic statement. This
hadīth does not give a universal directive governing the political
system of Islam. It does not establish the political superiority of
the Quraysh for all times. It is, on the contrary, a prophetic
judgment on a political dispute that was buried in the minds of a
group of the Ansār (helpers) of Madīnah. This group expected
that, after the Prophet’s (sws) demise, it was they, not the
Quraysh, who truly deserved to be the leaders of the Muslim
ummah. They based this view on their services to the religion of
God. This dispute remained latent in the minds of only a group
among the Ansār during the lifetime of the Prophet (sws). Yet it
found expressions in various ways even during his lifetime. The
Prophet (sws) feared that, after his demise, the dispute might
cause a great divide within the ummah. Sensing this danger, the
Prophet (sws) decided to settle the issue during his lifetime. Seen
in this light, the prophetic statement means that at that time the
people of Arabia would not accept the leadership of any tribe
other than the Quraysh. Therefore, immediately after him, the
leaders should be elected from the Quraysh. This prophetic
decision settled the dispute that arose between the immigrants of
Makkah and the Ansār of Madīnah right after the death of the
Prophet (sws). In the famous meeting of the Saqīfah of Banī
Sā‘idah, the Ansār put forward this claim.
True nature of the words of the Prophet (sws), therefore, is that
it was a decision on an implicit dispute on the question of
leadership of the Muslims. The Prophet (sws) gave his verdict
before the dispute clearly manifested itself. He based his decision
on the established political superiority of the Quraysh. He did not
adduce eternal racial superiority of the Quraysh over the other
nations of the world as is entailed by the usual interpretations of
the narrative.
One example of errors resulting from incorrect identification of
the context of this prophetic saying follows. The leader of a
contemporary Islamic movement, on the basis of this hadīth,
issued a legal opinion (fatwā) to the effect that a sharī‘ah
directive can be altered and suspended. In the support of this
view he cited the hadīth above mentioned. He held that though
Islam affirms equality as an established moral principle, yet, in
the case of the candidacy for caliphate, the Prophet (sws) found
this principle inexpedient. He cancelled this principle and
declared that leaders shall be from among the Quraysh.19
Take still another example. Some tradition contain following
words of the Prophet (sws):
I have been commanded to fight the people until they profess

there is no God but Allah. (Bukhārī, No: 385)
Apparent and literal meaning of the narrative, disregarding its

true context, validates the Orientalists’ view that Islam was
spread by the sword. It also entails that the war against unbelief
19
. The author refers to the viewpoint of Abū al-Aa‘lā Mawdūdī. See
Abū al-A‘lā Mawdūdī, Rasā’il-o-Masā’il, 22nd ed., vol. 1 (Lahore:
Islamic Publications, 1990), 64-8.
that the Prophet (sws) started has to go on till the whole mankind
embraces Islam and declares Allah to be the only deity. This is
plainly wrong. History falsifies this interpretation. We know that
the Prophet (sws) accepted jizyah from the People of the Book as
well as the Magians (al-majūs). He did not force them to say that
there is no God but Allah. Similarly all such people who
contracted treaties with Muslims, before their subjugation
(mu‘āhid/ahl al-sulh), were allowed to follow their religion.
They too were not forced to convert. We must, therefore, try to
discover the true meaning of this narrative. If we consider the
word “the people” in the narrative specifically referring to the
children of Ismā‘īl, based on obvious textual indications, the
hadīth narrative conforms to the teachings of the Qur’ān.
I have explained in my commentary on the Qur’ān the Divine
law regarding the Messengers (rusul) and their direct addressees.
I have explained that sometimes God sends a Prophet (nabī) as a
Messenger (rasūl) to a nation. The Messenger makes his message
plain. He establishes his claim by a number of portents and
removes all possible doubts on his claim to be a Divine
Messenger. If his addressees reject him and his message even
after the itmām-i hujjah (making the truth obvious in a
conclusive manner), the rejecters are either struck by God’s
cosmic punishment and destroyed or, otherwise, punished at the
hands of the believers.
It is this way (sunnah) of God which this hadīth explains. It is a
historical fact that the Prophet (sws) was primarily sent to the
Children of Ismā‘īl, who were his direct addressees. Therefore,
after itmām-i hujjah was accomplished by the Prophet (sws), they
were left to choose between death and faith. They were not held
in bondage nor were they offered to pay jizyah and follow their
religion.
Similar problematic narratives bearing upon issues of great
importance abound in the hadīth literature. It is, therefore, very
important to learn the context of situation of the reported acts and
statements of the Prophet (sws). Failure to understand the true
context of such narratives has perplexed most of our renowned
scholars who badly failed to explain such problematic narratives.
They either adopted apologetic attitude with regard to these
narratives or came to hold clearly unfounded views.
3.5 Mutual Harmony of Religion, Human Nature and Reason
The fifth and the last guiding principle in this regard is that the
religion does not contradict the dictates of reason and fitrah
(human nature). God has indeed based the teachings of religion
on the dictates of fitrah.
Fitrah of God upon which He has modelled the humans. (Q

30:30)
The religion highlights the dictates of reason and fitrah, shapes

them in the form of principles and bases the entire system of
human life on it. Hence, it cannot contradict fitrah. It follows
from this that everything that is against reason and fitrah would
definitely contradict the religion.
The entire call of the Qur’ān is based on reason and intellect.
The Book pleads to it in the support of its claims. Similarly,
ahādīth penetrate our hearts through reason and fitrah. It does
not contain something opposed to reason and fitrah. If we find
any such hadīth we must investigate and ponder over it in more
depth. We shall either appreciate that, previously, we were
misinterpreting the hadīth or learn that the narrative is not sound.
We must also appreciate that, at times, we fail to grasp all
aspects of a stated fact. If we fail to fully understand a prophetic
statement and we realise that the reason of our failure lies in the
limitations of human intellect, we should not hastily brand the
narrative as against reason and fitrah. It entails that if we see that
a statement contradicts reason and fitrah, we should continue
contemplating on it till we are able to grasp its meaning or
conclude that it lies out of the scope of human mind. If, however,
repeated investigation proves that the narrative contradicts reason
and fitrah and there is no way we can reconcile between the two
then it must be boldly rejected.
I also want to emphasize that, in this discussion, I do not mean
to refer to the understanding and reasoning of those who do not
use intellect and reason properly. Nor do I refer to those who
make their reason hostage to the desires of their flesh. Their issue
should be referred to God for judgment.
3.6 Conclusion
The religion and the sharī‘ah are not trivial affairs. They
command serious consideration. The prophetic sayings form part
of the religion of God. To declare that a particular statement is a
genuine prophetic saying is a grave judgment. It is a matter of
great responsibility. Not everyone is able to discharge this duty.
There are no doubt other principles of hadīth investigation. They
too are important for us. However, the ones which I have
mentioned above are fundamental. They provide firm and
foundational rules to guide the student. It is not possible for one
to properly understand and explain ahādīth without taking them
into consideration.
_____________
Chapter 4
Basic Criteria to Sift the Sound from the Unsound Ahādīth
There are six principles which can help us decide between the
sound and the unsound ahādīth. These principles are foundations
of the discipline of hadīth criticism. Taking guidance from these
principles makes it easy for us to sift the reliable reports from the
unreliable ones. It is extremely important for the student of the
hadīth literature to take help form them and consider them in his
effort to properly understand and fully benefit from the prophetic
knowledge. Since this is a very delicate issue, I shall try to base
my discussion on the prophetic sayings and views of the pious
elders (salf sālihīn). I shall not add anything to it on my own. I
have already mentioned many important points in the foregoing
pages in this regard. Here I intend only to bring such points in a
set order and properly organize the discussion so that it becomes
clear and observable to the reader.
Khatīb Baghdādī is the most important figure among the
scholars who dealt with the principles of the science of hadīth
criticism. He has carefully put all the important discussions in his
book, al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah. My discussion here is based
on the following chapters of this book:
1. Bāb fī wujūb itrāh al-munkar wa al-mustahīl min al-

ahadīth (On the obligation of rejecting the ahādīth which
contain munkar and improbable things)
2. Bāb dhikru mā yuqbalu fīhi khabar al-wāhid wa mā lā
yuqbalu fīhi (Issues which are decided on the basis of the
individual narratives and matters which are not affirmed on
the basis of such reports)
Khatīb has discussed this issue exhaustively. According to him,

the following is the first criterion to differentiate between the
reliable and the unreliable reports.
4.1 Religious Taste of the Believers and those Grounded in Knowledge

If a hadīth does not match the taste and understanding of the
believers and of those grounded in knowledge, it should not be
accepted. The Prophet (sws) has guided us to this principle as is
evident in the following hadīth:
[You should accept] a hadīth [ascribed to me] which your heart

finds familiar and it affects your hair and skins and corresponds
to the call of your heart and mind for I am ever closer to such a
statement than you. When something is ascribed to me which
your hearts do not recognize and from which your hair and
skins coil and which you find quite remote from your usual
disposition [it cannot be my statement] for I am more remote
from such a thing than you.20
The Arabic word julūd (singular jild) means skin.21 In this

instance, however, it connotes hair. The word has been used in
the Qur’ān in this sense.
Whereat does creep the hair (julūd) of those who fear their
Lord. (Q 39:23)
This usage is perfectly conventional and accords with the rules

of Arabic language. In Arabic, we can use metonymy. One could
speak of a container to refer to what it contains. The word abshār
is plural form of bashr (skin). I believe that the most accurate
translation of the word would be “body”. Skin covers the body
and is a part of it.
Let us now study the sayings of the pious elders on this issue.
Rabī‘ b. Khuthaym says:
There are ahādīth which give light like that of a clear day. We
can easily recognize them [as the sayings of the Prophet
(sws)]. There are, however, ahādīth which are shrouded by
the blackness of the dead of night. Our hearts are averse to
20
. Ibid., 430.
21
. The narrative just quoted does not contain the word julūd. The
author, it seems to me, has been mistaken. He either could not provide
the narrative which he is speaking of or he failed to notice that the word
used in the narrative is abshār which is a synonym of the word julūd.
God knows best.
them.22
Walīd b. Muslim says:
I heard Awzā‘ī say: “We would hear a hadīth and present it

before our companions just like we present dīnārs to a
goldsmith in order to learn if they are counterfeit or pure. We
accept what our companions accept as genuine and we reject
what they reject as defected.23
Jarīr expresses his attitude in this regard in the following

words:
Whenever I heared a new hadīth, I would go to Mughīrah and

narrate it to him. Whichever hadīth he asked me to abandon, I
did.24
The historical narratives above mentioned bring to light some

important points which follow:
First, the question whether a narrative is actually the saying of
the Prophet (sws) is to be decided on the basis of its contents
also. It is not merely accepted on the basis of an imposing chain
of narrators. This exercise of studying and analyzing the matn
can be carried out by only those who have developed a taste for
the prophetic speech. They can, on the basis of their expertise,
decide the true ahādīth from spurious fabrications. Such people
can, after listening to a narrative ascribed to the Prophet (sws),
judge and decide its origin from the effects it creates on their
hearts and minds. Such a taste cannot be developed by everyone.
It can only be developed by a person whose nature is without
blemish, whose perception of the prophetic speech is very sharp,
whose mind is pure of absurdities, and who has remained in the
company of the Prophet (sws) or, otherwise, has lived in the
prophetic speech (hadīth).
It is important to note that there are people who have not
enjoyed the privilege of the company of the Prophet (sws).
However, they develop an expertise in the prophetic discourse
(hadīth). They have deep insight and profound understanding of
22
. Ibid., 431.
23
. Ibid.
24
. Ibid., 432.
the religion. They make full efforts in training themselves in
these disciplines. Their taste for the prophetic language can be of
great help as well. Their understanding of the prophetic language
may, in a degree, be inferior to that of the Companions (rta), and
indeed this difference is only natural, yet, however, we must
appreciate a relevant Qur’ānic statement. The Almighty says that
in the later part of the life of this ummah, there shall emerge
people who will be just like the first generation. (Q 56:13-4) This
entails that God raises people of such fine and pure taste, even
today, who have command of the prophetic language through
God’s given knowledge and understanding. They are able to
decide the origin of a statement ascribed to the Prophet (sws).
They can judge if it is a genuine prophetic saying or not.
Second, every prophetic hadīth creates an ihtizāz (sensation) in
the heart of the listener if it is not dead. This ihtizāz can be of the
nature of glad tiding if the hadīth gives positive news. It can also
be a sense of fear of God if the hadīth warns of something. This
applies to all ahādīth. Similarly, a hadīth creates satisfaction,
conviction and peacefulness (sakīnah) if it relates to the category
of wisdom (hikmah). After all, man of pure heart and untainted
nature cannot remain unmoved upon listening a hadīth for it
creates a tumult in the inner self of the listener if is not already
dead.
Third, it is commonly acknowledged that the language of the
Qur’ān is distinctively superior to the ordinary human speech. It
cannot be compared to the language of human beings. Similarly,
the language of prophetic ahādīth is superior to the language of
common men. However, there is a little difference between the
Qur’ānic and the prophetic speech. This minor difference
between these two sources is only natural. The prophetic speech
cannot, after all, match the Divine speech. Still, however, it is an
observable reality that the prophetic speech is marked with such
depth and vastness, such exaltedness and sumptuousness as
cannot be observed in the speech of the ordinary humans.
Though one cannot speak such language, yet, however, one can
feel and sense it. On hearing a genuine prophetic hadīth one’s
heart cries out and witnesses that it must be the word of the
Prophet (sws).
The prophetic hadīth, it should be noted, is not only marked
with beauty of thought, it is also adorned with a palpable beauty
of expression. However, this beauty can be noticed only by those
who have made themselves acquainted with it. Experts of the
language of ahādīth can discern beauty of expression in the
prophetic speech even if it is not apparent to the ordinary people.
When they find a hadīth devoid of this characteristic beauty, they
can easily understand that the narrative is not genuine. They
come to know that it is a piece of stone being passed for a pure
gem. Similarly, if they confront a statement originating from
someone other than the Prophet (sws), falsely ascribed to him,
they can, after listening to it, understand that this is not the
speech of the Prophet (sws) even though it contains some beauty
of expression. If such a fabrication, being passed as the prophetic
saying, is abhorrent to his pure understanding of the religion he
rejects it outright. He cannot even imagine that the Prophet (sws)
could have uttered something inappropriate.
The Prophet (sws) is the most eloquent of all mankind. Take a
look at the supplications ascribed to him. Even man with only a
little understanding of and taste for the classical Arabic language
can observe the excellence of the prophetic speech in them and
appreciate that it originates from the Prophet (sws). Similarly he
can appreciate the origin of some parts added to the treasure at a
later stage. This line of examination will show that the grandeur,
greatness, simplicity embedded in style, and beauty and
attraction for hearts are such characteristics of the wise sayings
of the Prophet (sws) which cannot be found in the speech of the
ordinary people. Such stylistic beauties are the adornment of only
the prophetic speech.
In short, a very important tool of deciding between the reliable
and spurious ahādīth is the pure taste for the prophetic speech.
An obtuse person cannot develop such a taste and understanding
nor can this ability be borrowed. This taste is a product of pious
nature, firm belief, deep insight and living in the prophetic
ahādīth. Those blessed with this taste for and understanding of
the prophetic speech can not only spot the beauty of a saying
genuinely ascribed to the Prophet (sws) but also the ugliness of
the fabrications. A man in the possession of gems would never
settle on stones in his assets.
At this point, it would not be out of place to explain that people
blessed with this kind of taste for the prophetic ahādīth seldom
doubt their judgment. Doubts and uncertainty cannot, however,
be ruled out. It is understandable. Such uncertainly and doubts
faced in this exercise, at times, open ways for further
understanding. Therefore, a few experiences of this nature, if at
all, do not negate the applicability of the relevant prophetic
statement mentioned above.
The ability to differentiate the genuine prophetic statement
from the fabrications, granted to the true believers and the people
of knowledge and understanding, is further explained with the
help of the following hadīth. Abū Hurayrah narrated:
They [Companions (rta)] asked the Prophet (sws): “O Prophet

of God, how would you recognize those among your ummah
whom you have not seen?” He replied: “Will not some owner
of horses with white foreheads and white legs be able to
recognize them if mixed with the black ones?” They
responded: “Certainly he would.” At this the Prophet (sws)
said: “Then know that the people of my ummah will have
white faces and white hands and feet, a product of their habit
of ablution.” (Muslim, No: 249)
In my view, this parable equally applies to the distinction

between the speech of the Prophet (sws) and that of other people.
The prophetic speech is discernable from a distance provided the
observer has a pure taste and inquisitive mind.
4.2 The Ma‘rūf Practice

The second measure of distinction between the genuine and the
spurious ahādīth is the knowledge and understanding of the
ma‘rūf (known and customary practices). This principle is
obtained from the following saying of the Prophet (sws):
Muhammad b. Jubayr b. Mut‘im narrates from his father who

narrates that the Prophet (sws) said: “If anyone ascribes
something to me which is ma‘rūf and well-known to you, take
it [as my statement]. If something which you do not
acknowledge as ma‘rūf is ascribed to me then you should
reject it. For I do not utter munkar (abhorrent) things nor am I
one of those who give munkar statements.25
This means that if a narrative accords with what is ma‘rūf then

it may be accepted as a genuine prophetic word. If, however, it
contradicts what is customary then it should be rejected. In other
25
. Ibid., 430.
words, the Prophet (sws) has guided us to keep the religion pure
of the undesirable things. He has directed us to judge something
presented to us as part of the religion with the help of the
established religious teachings. The religion is pure and
unadulterated. If the new thing reported to us accords with the
earlier established religious teachings in form and spirit then we
can accept it as part of the religion. If, however, it does not match
them, we should reject it outright. This hadīth also guides us to
the true disposition of the Prophet (sws). The Prophet (sws) says
that he does not utter munkar things. This means that it is not
possible for anyone to ascribe any munkar to the Prophet (sws).
He cannot be imagined to say good things and then, God
forbidding, add munkar to them. Whatever he utters is pure. All
he says is marked by perfect unity of thought. He does not
wander in every wadi like poets. If we are able to defend this
unity of the prophetic teachings then satans cannot mix pebbles
(i.e. fabrications) in the gems (i.e. true prophetic knowledge). To
ignore this unity of the prophetic knowledge and to lose its
awareness results in the loss of everything. This clarification
from the Prophet (sws) was important, rather necessary. If it is
possible to imagine, God forbid, that the Prophet (sws) at times
uttered munkar things then the munkars would surely have
constituted a great part of the religion. We would then accept all
the munkar things ascribed to the Prophet (sws). Similarly, on
hearing a munkar ascribed to the Prophet (sws), one would be
right to claim that the Prophet (sws) stated it.
In this prophetic statement, ma‘rūf, means the Qur’ān and the
Sunnah. The term munkar refers to things that do not accord with
the fundamentals of the religion, sayings, and directives issued
by the Prophet (sws). If we apply this principle to some of the
isrā’īliyyāt26 and exegetical narratives, usually held sacrosanct,
their assumed status is abolished. Consider, for example, the
edified description of earlier Prophets and Messengers of God as
depicted by the Qur’ān and sound prophetic ahādīth. Keeping
this in mind, let us analyze the condemnable picture of these
persons emerging from some of the historical narratives. We
shall learn that the latter directly hurt the stature of the great
Prophets of God including Abraham, Lot, David and Solomon
26
. Hadīth reports based on the eastern folklore regarding the Jewish
and Christian milieu.
(sws). We consequently learn that all such narratives fall under
the category of munkar. These are worthy of rejection.
Fabrications mixed in the hadīth literature damage the status of
even the Prophet Muhammad (sws).
Another rather bitter reality is that such munkar narratives mixed
in the hadīth literature have caused attacks from the Orientalists on
the Prophet of Islam (sws) and the great religious persons. The
crime of the Orientalists is nothing more than that they added
colour to some weak ahādīth. The original material has thus been
provided by the unreliable and careless narrators. They, therefore,
must bear the burden of this evil movement.
If we keep in mind this criterion of ma‘rūf and munkar while
deciding the sound from the spurious narratives, the fabrications
can never deceive us. Guided by this principle, an expert can
easily and clearly see that such a narrative contradicts the Qur’ān
or it goes against the prophetic practice transmitted through
generality-to-generality. On the basis of this observation one
should reject them.
4.3 The Qur’ān

In the practice of judging the sound from the spurious ahādīth,
the third criterion is the Qur’ān itself. In this regard the Prophet
(sws) has been reported to have said:
Contradictory narratives (ascribed to me) shall soon reach

you. Whatever of these accords with the Book of God and my
Sunnah originates from me and whatever of it is against the
Qur’ān and my Sunnah cannot be my word.27
This hadīth gives us two principles. However, we shall confine

our discussion on the status of the Qur’ān as the criterion and
leave the Sunnah for the next section. The above hadīth teaches
us to reject any such narrative as contradicting the Qur’ān in any
aspect. On the discussion of the interrelationship of the Qur’ān,
the Sunnah and the Hadīth, we have thoroughly discussed this
issue. I explained that in matters of the religion the Qur’ān is the
custodian over everything else and a criterion for distinguishing
between truth and falsehood. Nothing contradicting it can ever be
tolerated. Some extremist ahl al-Hadīth dare to posit that the
Hadīth is custodian over the Qur’ān. Their view has been fully
27
Ibid.
refuted in the light of the following saying of the most learned
exponent of the Hadīth, Ahmad b. Hanbal himself. It has been
reported:
I heard Ahmad b. Hanbal respond to a question regarding the

traditions which say that the Sunnah overrules the Qur’ān: “I
dare not say so. However, the Sunnah explicates the Book,
defines and explains it.”28
While referring to the status of the Qur’ān, 29 as the criterion and

distinguisher between the sound and unsound narratives, Khatīb
Baghdādī writes:
A khabar-i wāhid (an individual-to-individual report) shall

not be accepted if it offends (manāfāt) commonsense, thābit
and muhkam (clear and established) Qur’ānic directives, the
known Sunnah, the practice which is as current as the Sunnah
and any definitive argument.30
The word manāfāt employed by Khatīb connotes complete

negation. Here I shall confine our discussion to the part of the
statement that relates to the status of the Qur’ān in this regard.
The ahādīth which negate and contradict the Qur’ān are
discarded. The reason is that the Qur’ān is the criterion for
gauging everything in the religion for it is absolutely authentic
and sound. As for the authenticity, it has been transmitted
through qawlī tawātur (oral or documentary) of the ummah. This
is why khabar-i wāhid, the probable truth, cannot be acceptable
if it goes against the Qur’ān. Khabar-i wāhid can neither
abrogate the Qur’ān nor change its directives nor affect its
rulings and statements in any way.
4.4 The Known Sunnah

According to the last quoted hadīth, the treasure of the known
Sunnah (sunnah ma‘lūmah) with the ummah, is itself a criterion
to judge the sound ahādīth from the unsound ones. Anything
contradicting or alien to the Sunnah shall not be accepted. This is
28
Ibid., 15.
29
This statement by Khatīb includes other important criteria which are
taken up in the following discussions. (Author)
30
. Ibid., 432.
because the Sunnah is historically established for it has reached
through tawātur-i ‘amalī. This cannot be affected by something
reported as khabar-i wāhid. The Sunnah predates akhbār-i āhād.
Here the reader should refresh what I have mentioned in the
discussion about difference between the Hadīth and the Sunnah. I
mentioned that there could be more than one sunnah in a given
matter. Mere difference of form is not mutual contradiction. This
fact should be fully grasped.
The Sunnah is established by tawātur-i ‘amalī (continuity of
practice). This means that there is no question of its acceptance
and rejection. It is known of necessity. However, the scholars
have clarified that khabar-i wāhid is fully rejected in certain
cases. I have thoroughly discussed this issue under the topic
‘hujjiyyat of khabar-i wāhid’ (Force of khabar-i wāhid). As has
been mentioned above, Khatīb Baghdādī too holds that all
akhbār-i āhād that contradict the known Sunnah or practices that
are followed like a sunnah shall be rejected. Similarly narratives
that contradict “the practice which is as current as a sunnah”
shall also be rejected.
By “the practice which is as current as a sunnah” the author of
al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah probably means what the Mālikī
jurists term as “al-‘amal ‘indanā hākadhā” (our normative way
goes thus). It means that a particular practice is customary and is
followed by the people perpetually. Such a customary practice,
according to the Mālikī jurists, is practically equal to the Sunnah.
Something practiced by the community perpetually, must have
acquired the Prophet’s (sws) approval. On this basis, the Mālikī
jurists do not affirm a khabar-i wāhid contradicting a perpetual
(mutawātir) customary practice in Madīnah refusing to accept it
as a satisfactory source to rely on. In like manner, they reject
practices current in other centres if found against the Sunnah
current in Madīnah. Another analogical case is the stance of the
Hanafī jurists regarding khabar-i wāhid. In issues which relate to
everyday life of the believers, they do not rely on khabar-i
wāhid. In such cases, they prefer the views of the scholars based
on personal reasoning and analogy. In matters of ‘umūm-i balwa,
they consider conducting ijtihād a more careful attitude than
following a khabar-i wāhid. This is perhaps because it is easier to
mend an erroneously concluded ijtihād but extremely difficult to
reject something invalidly accepted as a saying of the Prophet
(sws) or erroneously practiced as his action.
4.5 Reason and Commonsense

Reason and commonsense (‘aql-i kullī) functions as the fifth
criterion in the practice of sifting the sound from the unsound
ahādīth. I have already mentioned the view of Khatīb Baghdādī
in this regard.
Why are the ahādīth that offend commonsense rejected? I
believe that the religion, as explained earlier, is entirely based on
reason and fitrah. It is only the dictates of reason and fitrah that
have been highlighted in the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. The
Almighty Allah and the Prophet (sws) accomplished itmām-i
hujjah on the people only on the grounds of reason and fitrah.
Those who opposed the religion of fitrah, following desires of
the flesh, were declared as the enemies of reason. In this
perspective, there remains no chance for us to accept a khabar-i
wāhid that negates the foundation of the religion. Therefore, a
khabar-i wāhid contradicting reason must be rejected.
It needs to be appreciated that by reason we do not mean
reasoning by a particular individual. On the contrary, it refers to
human reason, the greatest blessing of God on man. We know
that many people believe in most absurd things and negate most
exalted facts. Such are not under consideration. Here we refer
only to reason which decides matters absolutely and whose
judgments are supported by all those endowed with power to
reason in this world. The decision of reason cannot be rejected on
the basis of something which cannot be considered the saying of
the Prophet (sws) with absolute surety.
It is important to note that the author of al-Kifāyah has used the
word munāfāt. As explained earlier, munāfāt signifies complete
negation. In some cases, with a little deliberation, one can
reconcile between reason and a khabar-i wāhid which apparently
negates reason. It should then be accepted as valid. There is
nothing wrong in reinterpreting a narrative and making it to
accord with reason. The problem, however, arises when we find
a khabar-i wāhid completely contradicting reason while neither
of these two accepts reinterpretation to make it accord with the
other and nor can either be preferred to the other. In case of a real
contradiction, we have to reject one of these two.
If the student finds a prophetic hadīth incomprehensible, he must
not hastily declare that it contradicts reason. If we cannot
understand something, it does not mean it contradicts reason. One
can, for example, say that he does not understand how water, fire
and trees will coexist in Hell. There could be various causes of this
lack of understanding on one’s part. Therefore, he should not
reject the fact as irrational. It can, at best, be held that human
intellect lacks power to understand this reality.
A little deliberation will help us see that there is no problem
with the fact that Hell will contain fire, water and trees together.
This is because we know that God has created trees of fire even
in this world. The most powerful kind of fire, electricity, is
obtained using water. This we notice in our everyday life. All
this confusion ends up with a single point that it is only lack of
one’s understanding that he cannot comprehend how fire and
water shall coexist. There is no real contradiction between the
Qur’ānic fact and the dictates of reason.
Let us now take an example illustrative of real contradiction
between the two sources of knowledge. The Qur’ān, in one of its
rhetorical questions, asks a particular group of people whether
God can be expected to treat the pious and the sinful equally.
Certainly He cannot be. To hold that it is possible would be an
outrageous view. It implies that God’s world is sheer injustice. It
does not matter to God whether someone is pious and virtuous or
sinful and rebellious. He shall treat both equally. This viewpoint
obviously contradicts dictates of reason for if we accept that God
will not punish the wicked and reward the pious, we question
God’s justice and, in fact, ascribe injustice to Him.
The truth of the matter is that the Creator and the Sustainer of
this world is perfectly Just. This is supported by the numerous
phenomena we encounter at every step in this universe as well as
in the human self. To hold that God is not Just is to clearly
contradict reason. God Himself teaches justice and commands us
adherence to it. This is the teaching of all the Messengers of God
and what all the Scriptures teach. It is precisely justice upon
which the heavens and earth rest. Had there been no justice, the
entire universe would have collapsed and ruined. How can it now
be possible that God equally accepts justice and injustice? Only
enemies of reason can go as far as to hold that.
4.6 Definitive Evidence

The last criterion used in the practice of sifting the sound from
the unsound ahādīth is definitive evidence. Khatīb Baghdādī, as
quoted above, acknowledges this principle. He has mentioned
that no khabar-i wāhid is acceptable if it offends any definitive
evidence.
An argument and evidence, received (naqlī) or rational (‘aqalī),
is usually a more satisfactory source of knowledge than a
khabar-i wāhid. We can never be absolutely certain whether a
khabar-i wāhid is validly ascribed to the Prophet (sws). The
same conclusion follows from considering this issue in another
perspective. We are obliged to follow the prophetic example
(sws). Definitive evidence is closer to the Prophet’s will and
decrees than khabar-i wāhid which is at best probable truth. It is
not right to hold that we must prefer a narrative ascribed to the
Prophet (sws), however weak, to rational and inferential
conclusions. Committing an error in exercising ijtihād is safer
than following lies. We can revise and correct our view
concluded through ijtihād. However, if something wrongly
ascribed to the Prophet (sws) is recognized as the part of the
religion, it will create far reaching problems for which we will
have no remedy.
4.7 Conclusion
There are six principles, the guiding criterion, to decide
between the sound and the unsound ahādīth. These fundamental
principles are:
1. A hadīth abhorrent to understanding and religious taste of

the believers and the pious scholars cannot be accepted.
2. A shādh (rare) narrative which does not accord with the
customary practice of the Muslims will not be accepted.
3. Narratives which contradict the Qur’ān in any aspect shall
be rejected.
4. Narratives which contradict the known Sunnah are to be
rejected.
5. Any narrative that contradicts the dictates of reason shall be
discarded.
6. Any narrative contradicting the conclusive and definitive
evidence and arguments cannot be accepted.
_____________
Chapter 5
Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws)
The prophetic knowledge and practice have mainly reached the

ummah through the Companions (rta), so they acquire a marked
priority over the rest of the ummah. It is only the Prophet’s (sws)
Companions (rta) through whom the rest of the people of the
world have acquired the entire corupus of the religion of God.
Their status and privilege is not shared by anyone coming after
them. They alone are the enchanting flowers of the ummah. The
Qur’ān itself awards them with such a high station. In fact, the
importance the muhaddithūn attached to them cannot be debated
over even in the absence of the textual proofs of the fact.
5.1 Testimony of the Qur’ān

God Almighty says that the Companions (rta) are the advance
party of the ummah and the witnesses to God in this world:
And similarly we have made you a middle nation so that you

may be witnesses over the people and the Messenger becomes
a witness over you. (Q 2:143)
This verse throws light on two important facts. First, God has put
the responsibility of communicating and disseminating His
religion on the Prophet (sws). He decreed that the Companions
(rta) are responsible for this task after the death of the Prophet
(sws). This was their clear and concrete responsibility. It was not
an optional religious act they could perform or leave aside on
choice. Second, the high status and superiority the Companions
(rta) enjoy within the ummah owes itself to the fact that they are
shu‘adā’ lillāhi ’alannās fī al-ard (God’s witnesses over the
people on this earth). It means that they inherited the prophetic
knowledge and practice and stood witnesses to it before the world.
5.2 Testimony of Ahādīth

The status of the Companions (rta), in the sight of the Prophet
(sws), has been preserved in the hadīth literature. It is clearly
mentioned in many prophetic traditions. I quote the following
narrative from al-Kifāyah fī ‘ilm al riwāyah. Ibn ‘Abbās (rta)
reports that the Prophet (sws) said:
Whatever has been given to you in the Book of God is

obligatory for you. There is no valid excuse for anyone to
abandon the Qur’ānic edicts. If the issue facing you is not
dealt with in the Book of God, then you have to follow my
practice. If you find that there is no such practice of mine to
guide you then you should follow what my Companions tell
you for my Companions are like stars in the sky; whoever of
them you take as a guide, you shall be rightly guided.31
This shows that the Companions (rta) are the people who have
transmitted the Sunnah of the Prophet (sws) to the world and
they themselves are the beacon of light. They are the medium
through which the knowledge and practice of the Prophet (sws)
has been handed down to the rest of the world. The basis of their
exalted status, as the Prophet (sws) pointed out, is that they are
the source of guidance for the world.
5.3 Muhaddithūn’s Viewpoint

In view of this extraordinary importance of the Companions
(rta), the muhaddithūn decided that the principles of character
and cognitive analysis of the narrators will not be applied to
them. In this regard, the muhaddithūn adopted the guiding
principle that all the Companions (rta), without any exception,
are reliable. They are above customary analysis in this regard.
While deciding whether a narrative ascribed to the Prophet (sws)
is reliable and acceptable, an expert has to scrutinize the
characters of all narrators in its chain of transmission. Their good
and bad have to be vigorously analyzed. It is only after a
thorough investigation that a narrative they report is accepted or
rejected. Contrarily, the Companions (rta) shall not be subjected
to such an investigation.
Once this principle applied to the practice of the transmission of
the prophetic ahādīth is accepted, it leads to the question of the
definition of a sahābī (Companion of the Prophet). Who is a
sahābī? Would a person who has merely seen the Prophet (sws)
31
. Ibid., 48.
and has not enjoyed his company for a considerable time merit to
be called a sahābī? Would such a person be exempted from the
principles of jarh wa ta‘dīl (the act of affirming or disaffirming the
narrators as reliable transmitters)? Would he be considered a
beacon of guidance? The muhaddithūn have, quite naturally,
differed over this issue and three distinct groups of them emerged:
5.3.1 The First Group

The view of the first group as represented by ‘Abd Allāh b.
‘Umar (rta) follows:
I have observed that scholars hold that every adult Muslim

who met the Prophet (sws), even for a moment, while he
understood the religion and found it pleasing can be called a
sahābī. However, I believe that the Companions (rta) can be
divided into different categories according to taqaddum fī al-
islām.32
By taqaddum fī al-islām, ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Umar (rta) means that all

the Companions (rta) are not equal; they are of different religious
status and should be put in different categories. Some are of a very
high religious status others are in the middle whilst some others
hold a low status.
5.3.2 The Second Group

The view of the second group of the scholars in this regard has
been represented by Sa‘īd b. al-Musayyab as follows:
We do not consider someone a sahābī (Companion) unless he

has remained in the company of the Prophet (sws) for a year
or two and has fought with him a couple of ghazwahs.33
5.3.3 The Third Group

Khatīb has recorded the opinion of another scholar. His view
represents the third group in this regard. This view, by its nature,
criticizes the previous views and points out the true picture of the
matter. This view follows:
The lexicographers unanimously hold that the word sahābī is

32
. Ibid., 50-1.
33
. Ibid., 50. Ghazwah usually refers to the wars in which the Prophet
(sws) participated.
a derivation of the root S H B. The meaning of the word does
not hinge upon the duration of the company. It can equally be
applied to company of a very short as well as a long duration.
As for the lexicon, the word applies to any such person as
blessed with the company of the Prophet (sws), no matter how
long. However, it is a known reality that it is customary
among the Muslims to refer to a person as a sahābī who has
been in the company of the Prophet (sws) for a long time and
has been meeting him continuously. Customarily, this word is
not used for someone who had a short meeting with the
Prophet (sws), or walked along with him a few steps or heard
him say something. This entails that we restrict the
application of the word to those only who can appropriately
be called sahābī. Still, however, the ahādīth transmitted by
reliable and trustworthy individuals (among the first
generation) shall be accepted even though the narrator has not
been blessed with a longer company of the Prophet (sws) and
has heard him only once.34
The first part of the assertion is quite weak. The scholar holds
that the duration of the company has no bearing on the meaning
of the word sahābī whatsoever. We know that if somebody
accidently happens to confront someone, neither of them is called
a companion of the other. Similarly, it is not applied to a person
who walks a few steps with us. The word, by its nature, implies
company of a longer duration. However, the second part of the
statement is very strong. It proves that the great scholars of the
past considered the duration of the company of a man before
declaring him a sahābī of the Propeht (sws). Besides, he must
have rendered services in the cause of the religion. If we consider
this fact in our definition of the term sahābī we come to know
that the decision of the muhaddithūn regarding the exemption of
the Companions (rta) from jarh wa ta‘dīl is justified.
5.4 Sahābiyyah According to the Qur’ān

We have learnt that the muhaddithūn would not subject the
Companions (rta) to jarh wa ta‘dīl. They invoked certain
Qur’ānic verses which praise the Companions (rta) of the
Prophet (sws). Such verses refer to and praise only those
34
. Ibid., 51.
individuals who embraced the religion first of all and stood with
the Prophet (sws) in good and bad times. They spent their wealth
in the cause of the religion of God and fought the enemies of
God in the holy wars bravely. These verses do not refer to those
who happened to have seen the Prophet (sws) accidently. While
exposing the evil of the hypocrites from among the Bedouin
people, the Qur’ān has clearly stated that they had not enjoyed
the company of the Prophet (sws) in spite of the fact that they
had seen him and vehemently professed belief in him.
An inductive survey of the Qur’ānic verses dealing with the
Companions (rta) and their virtues is imperative in this study. We
have to ascertain whether the Almighty gives any importance to
merely and accidentally seeing the Prophet (sws). We have to see
whether it is their long company, help and support that raises
their status over the rest of the ummah. It may be their
endeavours to seek knowledge and get training from the Prophet
(sws) that holds the primary importance in this regard. In the
foregoing pages I have referred to a verse from Sūrah al-Baqarah
(Q 2). It can prove to be a decisive verdict in this regard. The
verse tells us that the real significance, the Companions (rta)
draw, is grounded in that they received and transmitted the
knowledge and practice of the Prophet (sws); they obtained,
taught and preached it. This, however, is not possible without
relatively long company, full commitment and sincere devotion.
Another relevant verse discusses the devoted Companions (rta)
who pledged to give their lives at the prophetic call to jihād, even
though they were hundreds of miles away from their homes,
were not properly armed and were direly exposed to the enemy.
God became pleased with the believers when they were

pledging allegiance to you under the tree. God knew the state
of their hearts. And God sent down on their hearts tranquillity
and He decreed for them a victory in the near future. (Q 48:18)
This theme has again been repeated in Sūrah al-Tawbah (Q 9)

in the following words:
Those of the Emigrants and the Helpers who have outreached

others and have embraced Islam first of all and the ones who
have beautifully followed their example, God is pleased with
them all while they are pleased with God. (Q 9:100)
These qualities of the Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws)

have been mentioned in the following verses of Sūrah al-Hashr
(Q 59):
[This is specifically] for those of the needy Emigrants who

have been forced to abandon their homes and assets while
they were helping the Messenger of God, seeking God’s
blessings and His pleasure. Such are the real upholders of
truth. Those who are already settled in their abodes and are
maintaining their faith love those who migrate to them. They
do not feel unease at heart for whatever is given to them (the
Emigrants). They (the Helpers) prefer them (the Emigrants)
over themselves even when they themselves are in need. (Q
59:8-9)
If we carefully ponder over these verses, we learn that they not

only establish veracity and justness of the Companions (rta) but
also award them an exalted status, both in this and the next
world. This quality cannot be shared with them by any other
group of people from among the ummah. The Qur’ān does not
state that this status is granted to them because they happened to
have seen the Prophet (sws). Contrarily, their blessed status
draws on their outreaching others in accepting the faith. They
migrated from their homeland, abandoned their assets and wealth
for the cause of Islam and risked their lives in fighting for the
cause of God. They sacrificed everything they possessed in
helping God’s religion and His Messenger. The helpers too
participated in this noble cause by sharing their homes and
wealth with the Emigrants.
If we keep the above discussion in mind, we can justly claim
that the soundest view regarding the position of those who
happened to have seen the Prophet (sws) is the one that has been
ascribed to ‘Ᾱsim Ahwal:
‘Abd Allāh b. Sarjis has seen the Prophet (sws). However, he

is not a Companion of him.35
According to ‘Ᾱsim, one does not become a sahābī by merely

seeing the Prophet (sws). Sahābiyyat does not hinge upon one’s
35
. Ibid., 50.
accidental meeting with the Prophet (sws). Thus, about the
position of those who merely saw the Prophet (sws), we can, at
best, adopt the following careful view ascribed to Shu‘bah:
Jundub b. Sufyān came to meet the Prophet (sws) and you can
say, if you insist, that he has been blessed with the suhbah
(company) of the Prophet (sws).36
Some other scholars express the true status and position of a

person who accidently or rarely met the Prophet (sws) as follows:
kāna lahū ru’yah [he saw the Prophet (sws)].
5.5 Conclusion
I believe that the opportunity to have seen the Prophet (sws) is
a great blessing of God. However, the Qur’ān has not attached
any importance to this fact alone. According to the Qur’ān, the
high status of the Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws), is due
to their services to the religion, valour and bravery they showed
in defending, upholding and preaching the religion and helping
the Messenger of God (sws). The Companions (rta) are
categorized and grouped by analyzing the degree and extent of
their services to the religion and the Messenger (sws). If it is only
seeing the Prophet (sws) that makes somebody his Companion
(rta) then the deserters in the battles of Ahzāb and Tabūk and the
hypocrites of Madīnah and those from among the Bedouin, and
those who established Masjid-i Darār are no less deserving of
this status. These people not only saw the Prophet (sws) but also
fought some of the battles with him. They have been spending in
the way of God though hypocritically. Yet, the way the Qur’ān
condemns their behaviour and rejects their faith is not unclear to
anyone, the details of which can be found in Sūrah al-Munāfiqūn
(Q 63), al-Tawbah (Q 9) and al-Anfāl (Q 8). As far as the
transmission of ahādīth is concerned, we accept narrators from
all the groups and categories of the Companions (rta) of the
Prophet (sws). Still, however, in the exercise of interpreting
ahādīth we may only consider the views, wordings and analysis
of the narratives of those Companions who are most prominent
and famous for their understanding of the words of the Prophet
(sws). For example, Abū Bakr (rta), ‘Umar (rta), ‘Uthmān (rta),
‘Alī (rta), ‘Ᾱ’ishah (rta), Abū Dardā’ (rta), Mu‘ādh b. Jabal (rta),
36
. Ibid.
‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Umar (rta), and ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Abbās (rta) etc. It
is extremely important for the students of the hadīth literature to
appreciate who are more knowledgeable and experts in the
hadīth literature among the first generation of the believers.
_____________
Chapter 6
Excellence of the Isnād and its Inherent Limitations
Any hadīth of the Prophet (sws), in its first instance, is reported

by, at least, one of his Companions (rta). Passing through the
chain of narrators down the subsequent generations, it reaches
the compilers of the traditions. The chain of guarantors from the
Prophet (sws) to a compiler is called the isnād. By the compilers,
we mean the individuals from the earlier generations who have,
owing to their services to record the oral tradition, become a
milestone in the passage of ahādīth from the Prophet (sws) to the
subsequent generations. These compilers accomplished an
unparalleled task regarding the Muslim tradition. Imām Mālik,
Imām Ahmad b. Hanbal, Imām Bukhārī, Imām Muslim and
others belong to this group of the compilers. Since the
compilation of the major hadīth works, the student of the
prophetic traditions has no choice but to turn to these sources. It
is now only these sources which form an authority on the
transmission of the hadīth literature.
The status, importance and station of the Companions (rta) of the
Prophet (sws) in the chain of the narrators have been discussed in
the previous chapter. The Companions (rta) indubitably are ever
shining flowers, a source of blessing for this ummah. Their
reliability is established and cannot be analyzed and criticized
unlike other narrators of a hadīth. Their truthfulness and veracity is
acknowledged by all Muslim scholars. The muhaddithūn have set
perfectly sound principles concerning the role and reliability of the
Companions (rta). The muhaddithūn hold that: al-sahābatu
kulluhum ‘adūl (All Companions (rta) are just and reliable). It has
been narrated on the authority of ‘Umar (rta) that the Prophet
(sws) said:
My Companions are like stars. Whoever of them you follow,

you shall be rightly guided. (Mishkāt al-Masābih, No: 6018)
This prophetic testimony entails what the Companions (rta)

report from the Prophet (sws) is true. We must acknowledge that
it has been transmitted honestly and sincerely and must not
cherish any doubts regarding their reports without a sound proof.
The rest of the narrators in the isnād, according to the
muhaddithūn, are to be subjected to rigorous critical analysis.
Their reliability, truthfulness, scholarly expertise, ability to keep
something in memory and religious attitude, in short, everything
has to be gauged and analyzed. Views of the experts of the
science of hadīth criticism, on each of the narrators, have to be
collected and collated. In this exercise, the aim should be to
make sure that a hadīth one accepts as genuine and sound is pure
of all possible blemishes. This research was, later on, developed
into a mature discipline of science of men (asmā’ al-rijāl) by the
scholars and experts in the science of traditions.
6.1 The Isnād and Asmā’ al-Rijāl

Muslim scholars were fully intent upon safeguarding the treasure
of the prophetic traditions. They decided that the narrators of
acceptable traditions should be known historical figures. The
science of men (asmā’ al-rijāl) was introduced to fulfil this end.
This accomplishment of Muslims is acknowledged as an
unparalleled one in the whole human history. No other nation has
introduced and established such a science. The Companions (rta),
the successors, the successors of the successors, and the people of
the later generations living in the third century have been involved
in receiving, narrating and compiling the sayings, acts, history and
circumstance of the Prophet (sws). The process culminated in a
formal compilation of the literature in the form of books in the
third century AH. If carefully assessed, the number of persons
involved in this process reaches hundreds of thousands. The
muhaddithūn recorded the life history of twelve thousand persons
who saw the Prophet (sws) in their lifetime. The number of the
transmitters from the next generations is many times greater.
Thousands of Muslim scholars devoted their lives in collecting
life account of the narrators and categorizing the collected data.
They visited every major town and reached every small
settlement. They met their contemporaries and collected all
available biographical information about the narrators. In their
effort to learn about the life histories of the narrators from the
previous generations, they met all such people who had possibly
been in contact with them directly or indirectly. The factual data
about the life history of these narrators was then collected and
critically analyzed to the extent humanly possible. This is how
the unparalleled and great science of men (asmā’ al-rijāl) was
developed. Scholars working in this field recorded names,
surnames, titles, life history, reliability and truthfulness of all the
narrators involved in hadīth transmission. The views of the great
scholars concerning character, memory and understanding of
these narrators were also recorded. The status of the narrators, in
terms of reliability and truthfulness, was ascertained. They were
then categorized in the light of this data. We can safely say that
every person who ascribed anything to the Prophet (sws) put his
entire life to the rigorous critical analysis of straightforward,
uncompromising and unaccommodating critics and in a way
faced the final accountability in this very world.
Perhaps, people who should have competed Muslims in this
field are the People of the Book. They have, however, failed even
to show required carefulness with regards to preserving the
Books of God revealed to their Prophets, not to speak of actions
and sayings of their Prophets. They have indeed proved to be
very careless followers. Even their sacred scriptures do not equal
Muslims’ works on history. Students of Islamic studies know that
every narrative recorded in the Muslims’ historical works
appends a chain of warrantors. This chain, in turn, is critically
analyzed and approved by well-defined principles. As to the
People of the Book, even their most sacred books are not
recorded that carefully. Though the Gospels are ascribed to some
of the disciples of Jesus Christ (sws), yet, the biographical data
about their earliest authors is unknown. Identity of the persons
involved in transmitting the Gospels from the disciples of Jesus
to the earlier compilers is also a mystery. A people who have
shown laxity in preserving the word of God cannot be expected
to have shown the least care in preserving the sayings and actions
of their Prophets and Messengers.
It needs to be appreciated that in the present day, the students of
the prophetic hadīth, in determining veracity and falsity of the
narrators, depend solely upon the research work of the pioneering
experts in the science of men (asmā al-rijāl). It is only in the
light of their work that one can, now, ascertain status of the
narrators of ahādīth. Soundness or weakness of ahādīth can only
be judged in the light of the data collected, recorded and judged
by these authorities. This is because we have been, with the
passage of time, left with no means to access the resources of
research in this regard other than the works of the pioneers in this
field who touched the highest level of scholarship and served the
discipline to all possible extent.
6.2 The Isnād: one of the Criteria

In deciding authenticity of a hadīth, isnād plays the most
important role. Obviously, the first thing to study and analyze in
the exercise of judging the status of a hadīth is the isnād. The
study of the matn (text) comes later. We can only decide the
degree of reliability of the narrative in the light of this entire
scrutiny.
The above discussion shows that we cannot ignore importance
of the isnād in the transmission of ahādīth. However, many of
the scholars hold that if the isnād in a hadīth is proved sound on
the principles of isnād criticism, the narrative must be accepted
as a genuine prophetic saying. To them, a sound isnād always
carries a sound narrative. This means that, according to these
scholars, a hadīth has to be declared sound if its isnād is reliable
for, to them, the soundness of an isnād guarantees soundness of
the hadīth transmitted through it. Such extremist position is a
mere naivety. I believe that this view eclipses the unparalleled
research by the pioneers of the science of hadīth criticism. This
calls for an explanation which follows.
Importance, beauty, intricacies and grandeur of isnād as well as
its status as a criterion to judge the authenticity and soundness of
ahādīth cannot be denied. However, one must remain clear that
there are certain inherent limitations in the isnād. This makes it
incumbent upon a researcher not to rely merely on the isnād. He
must adopt other principles which can help lead him to the truth.
Deciding soundness and weakness of a hadīth merely on isnād is
not a satisfactory and certain method. An example can best
explain this point. In our efforts to study a tree, we cannot merely
rely on our knowledge of its roots. On the contrary, it is only
after a thorough study of its stem, branches, leaves, flowers and
fruits that we can conclude a comprehensive and sound view.
6.3 First Limitation of the Isnād

A little analysis can help us understand the inherent limitations
of the isnād. The first limitation, for example, is that it is not easy
to fully cover religious beliefs, character, knowledge, conduct,
relations and dealings of hundreds of thousands of unrelated
strangers living in very remote places and time. Certain and
definitive knowledge of these facts cannot be obtained. Our
research cannot guarantee that we have obtained unblemished
knowledge regarding ability of the transmitters to obtain and
transmit reports from the Prophet (sws). We do not deny that the
pioneering muhaddithūn have accomplished unparalleled tasks.
We, however, appreciate that this job is extremely difficult. If we
start investigating the character and life of even our
contemporaries living in our hometowns and villages, it would
not be an easy task, not to speak of researching the lives and
characters of people living in remote time and place. With regard
to the people who lived centuries before us, the most careful
stance we can adopt is that we have collected overall information
regarding their lives. Their persons are not unidentified. But our
view regarding their life and character cannot be declared as final
and conclusive. To declare it final is to show overconfidence in
our knowledge and understanding.
The most satisfactory view regarding the life and character of
an individual can only be concluded if we ourselves have had
dealing with him. This view has been ascribed to ‘Umar (rta), a
person of great knowledge and understanding. It has been
narrated that once someone praised another person in his
presence. ‘Umar (rta) asked the man whether the person in
question had been his neighbour. He replied in the negative.
Then ‘Umar (rta) asked him whether he accompanied the other
person in some business tour. At this too the man replied in the
negative. ‘Umar (rta) was surprised.
This anecdote teaches us that we should not bear witness to
someone’s character if we are not related to him. We may testify
regarding only those with whom we have dealt with. We know
our business partners, co-travellers and neighbours but not
strangers. We can only be clear about the conduct of those whom
we meet daily in the mosque or whom we help and seek help
from for we live in common circumstances. No judgment
regarding a stranger should easily be passed. Even a very
intelligent person can be deceived at times.
6.4 Second Limitation of the Isnād

The second inherent limitation in the isnād criticism owes itself
to the intricacies involved in the exercise of judging the
reliability of the narrators. Every researcher does not know what
characteristics should be judged as a negative trait in one’s
character (jarh) and what characteristics should invite positive
appraisal (ta‘dīl). Not every individual can decide what
characteristics invite criticism and which ones entail approval.
What are the foundations of a good character? What are the
foundations of a bad one? These things are not so easy to decide.
Therefore, not every second person can come to a just decision
on the issue. Many examples in the past prove that people have
shown laxity in this regard. The pioneers in the science of hadīth
criticism have mentioned such examples. The difficulty involved
in this practice can easily be observed by extremism in love and
hatred for people, something so common today.
The exercise of jarh wa ta‘dīl requires sound knowledge,
profound understanding, sufficient experience and much of
brainpower. Our ancestors were humans after all. People were
never elevated to the status of angels in any period of human
history. We know that the level of moral conduct, knowledge and
understanding of the experts of the science of asmā’ al-rijāl was
superior to that of ours. Still, however, they were humans. The
information they have provided around the life history of the
narrators of ahādīth and their views based on such information
cannot be expected to be absolutely neutral. They suffered from
human weaknesses like biasness which is inherent in human
nature. This biasness we know is reflected in our views both for
and against people.
One of the basic qualifications for a person who engages
himself in the practice of jarh (disapproving) is that he should be
a balanced personality. The individuals who take upon
themselves the task of ta‘dīl (approving) need to be even more
balanced; they need to show more intelligence.
The most careful approach with regards to jarh wa ta‘dīl, a
surely difficult task, is that we conclude an overall view of the
narrators in a chain of transmission, in the light of the data about
their life and character. This general opinion regarding their
character and conduct should never be considered final and
conclusive. Consequently, it must not be taken as the only basis
of judging the sound and the unsound ahādīth.
6.5 Third Limitation of the Isnād

No doubt the experts in the science have generally observed
great care, yet they showed laxity in accepting ahādīth from ahl
al-bid‘ah (the innovators) including the rawāfid (the extremist
Shī‘īs). It is obvious that with regards to the issue of innovators –
the Shī‘ī and rawāfid for example – the muhaddithūn have
greatly compromised their principles. It has, however, been
reported that Imām Mālik showed great care in this regard. Other
great compilers and expert jurists including Imām Shāfi‘ī, Imām
Ahmad b. Hanbal, Imām Abū Hanīfah and Imām Muslim, it is
clear, did not hesitate from accepting narratives from ahl al-
bid‘ah. The only care they observed was that they did not accept
the narratives on the authority of those who not only innovated
beliefs and practices but also openly professed their innovations
and called upon people to follow them. This means that, to these
scholars, it is not unacceptable to take a hadīth transmitted by an
innovator; what makes it unacceptable is an open profession and
propagation of one’s innovations.
The truth of the matter is that, according to the Qur’ān, ahādīth
and the overall teachings of the Prophet (sws), merely innovating
something in the religion renders a person unreliable. That an
innovator does not profess the innovation he practices is not
relevant. The reason for this is that the Shī‘ī, rawāfid, esoteric and
other similar schools are founded on deviance from the true
religion. They cannot fulfil their duties to their sects unless they
prove their deviant views by mixing untruth with the true
teachings of the religion of God. They need to rely on ahādīth in
their efforts to bring proofs validating their deviant views. They
cannot help committing dishonesty in narrating ahādīth. The sects
they belong to are after all based on innovations. They are not
based on the received knowledge. They do not merely differ with
the mainstream ummah over the interpretation of some verses of
the Qur’ān or a few ahādīth. They, on the contrary, mostly differ
with the ummah on the sources of religious knowledge in Islam. If
someone is intent upon showing brotherly attitude and establishing
positive relations with such people, they may well do so. However,
in matters of religion of God this philosophy of co-existence and
tolerance is evidently wrong and unacceptable.
To accept the ahādīth transmitted by the innovators is to open a
door of dissension in the ummah. It has indeed caused great
problems in the past. Merely being an innovator is sufficient
proof of one’s unreliability as far as the narration of ahādīth is
concerned. No one should accept the ahādīth transmitted by a
follower of these sects even if he swears by God that he has
stated the truth. I believe this is the correct view which accords
with the Qur’ān and the Sunnah.
6.6 Fourth Limitation of the Isnād

The fourth inherent limitation of isnād is that major compilers
have knowingly shown laxity with regards to the narratives
containing exhortations and expressions of excellence of good
deeds. They confined rigorous investigation to narratives dealing
with the allowable and the forbidden (halāl wa harām). Khatīb
has reported that Imām Ahmad b. Hanbal said:
When we narrated from the Prophet (sws) something dealing

with allowances, prohibitions, practices (sunan), and the
commands, we applied strict criteria on the isnād and when
we reported something dealing with the excellence of certain
religious deeds, something which neither established nor
cancelled a ruling, we showed laxity. We abandoned strict
measures concerning the latter category of the narratives.37
This shows that the reports which contained some kind of

religious rulings were important and crucial. They were put
through harder test. Contrarily, the weak and unsound narratives
were accepted in exhortations and warnings. The narratives of
the latter category were thought to be very useful in calling
people to practice religious observances and avoid the forbidden
acts. The muhaddithūn believed that these narratives would make
the believers adopt piety. Similarly, the narratives on excellence
of religious deeds were believed to encourage people on adopting
virtue and piety. This notion made the muhaddithūn record such
weak and unreliable narratives in their works. We, however, need
to analyze if this approach was justified or not.
An in-depth study and long analysis over the issue have led me
to the conclusion that this view of the muhaddithūn proved
disastrous. The deviant views, myths and practices of the Sufis
and mystics (ahl-i tasawwuf) are a product of laxity shown by the
muhaddithūn in this regard. Their acceptance of the weak
narratives opened up doors to libraries of weak and unreliable
narratives. Such weak reports gave birth to all unfounded
religious concepts. People could pick up narratives to support a
37
. Khatīb Baghdādī, al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah, 134.
religious belief they cherished. Thus the “fruits” of the weak
narratives did not remain confined to moral and religious
improvement. These narratives negatively affected the basic
beliefs and fundamental teachings of Islam. This trend, later on,
got so current that new practices, beliefs and moral codes were
innovated and passed on as part of the religion. The muhaddithūn
belatedly realized the encroachment of the mystics and declared
it a great wrong to the religion of God. However, damage had
already been done. The state of affair was then beyond
correction. The muhaddithūn met with a pungent response that
they had nothing better to do than to engage in backbiting. The
activity of jarh wa ta‘dīl was merely based on backbiting, a
harām act, they were told. The mystics and the Sufis were not
bothered in the least by the findings of the muhaddithūn. The
view that the narratives containing directives, sunan and halāl
wa harām should be critically analyzed and the narratives on
targhīb wa tarhīb may not be rigorously investigated eventually
proved wrong, rather poisonous and detrimental.
In reality, the laxity shown in accepting weak ahādīth in certain
religious issues resulted in influx of unsound narratives. The
books on Sufism are replete with unfounded reports. It is no
more a secret that these narratives have disfigured the true
religion. It would not be an exaggeration to declare that a parallel
concept of the religion has been erected on the mass of fabricated
and weak narratives. This concept of the religion finds no basis
and support in the practice and teaching of the Prophet (sws) and
the rightly guided caliphs.
6.7 Summary
The isnād provides one of the fundamental criteria to help us in
deciding the soundness or spuriousness of a hadīth. However, it
is not the only criterion in this exercise because, in spite of its
intricacies, beauties, grandeur, and proximity to the ideal, the
isnād remains short of objective data. It has its inherent
limitations which cannot be overcome. It is, therefore, necessary
that in order to find the truth, we continue judging the isnād and,
in addition, use all other natural ways and methods to properly
ascertain the true status of ahādīth.
_____________
Chapter 7
Riwāyah Bi Al-ma‘nā (Transmission by Meaning)
A prophetic hadīth has two parts, the isnād (chain of narrators)

and matn (text). Therefore, in deciding the soundness or
spuriousness of a hadīth, both isnād and matn are studied for
each holds equal importance. In the process of hadīth
investigation and understanding, the position of neither can
validly be denied.
In the previous chapter, I discussed in detail the first part of a
hadīth, the isnād. Now I shall take up the matn, the actual text of
the narratives, and explain some of the weak points in it and shall
try to determine methods which can be helpful in reaching the
truth in this regard.
We shall start this discussion with an analysis of the process of
hadīth transmission by meaning (riwāyah bi al-ma‘nā). We will
try to ascertain what it means to say that the hadīth literature is
mostly narration of meaning. We will also point out some
necessary consequences of this fact. This is important to discuss
because most of ahādīth have been transmitted in this very way.
They are not verbatim transmission of the word of the Prophet
(sws).
It is well known that most of the narratives have preserved the
meaning of the original rather than the words. It is not something
strange and no rational being can object to that. If it were held
absolutely necessary to narrate the traditions verbatim as in the
case of the Qur’ān, that would have made it impossible for the
Muslims to transmit ahādīth at all. The Qur’ān and the Hadīth
have different religious status and position in Islam. The mode of
transmission of each is, therefore, different. It is necessary to
transmit the Qur’ān verbatim. If the same condition was attached
to the transmission of ahādīth, that would have made its
reporting impossible. We would then have been deprived of a
very important source of the prophetic wisdom.
As for the Qur’ān, the angel Gabriel, the Prophet (sws) and the
scribes of revelation, all were involved in its initial recording.
The angle Gabriel brought and revealed it to the Prophet (sws).
The Prophet (sws) appointed his scribes to write it down. The
case of ahādīth is different. The Prophet (sws) always did and
said things. He set examples in his deeds and actions. His words
contained guidance for the ummah. He was indeed doing or
saying something all the time. He spoke while sitting, standing,
walking, resting, while being in company or solitude, in the
bazaar, with his family, at home, in the mosque, during the wars,
while journeying; at every moment in every place. He was
always stating something or doing a practice, giving tacit or
express approval to others’ actions in the presence of people. The
witnesses to his sayings, actions and tacit approvals reported
these things to those who did not witness them so that every
Muslim could learn from them. This was necessary because the
Prophet (sws) was not only a lawgiver but also a perfect
exemplar regarding the observance of religious rulings and
practices. His every act, small or big, ordinary or unusual,
becomes a model for the Muslims to emulate. The way he turned
his face to look at something and the way he took a morsel in his
mouth has been emulated by the followers. If witnesses of his
sayings and actions were obliged to pass on his sayings verbatim
and report his acts exactly, it would have been impossible to
transmit this wealth of knowledge. In that case, I am afraid
hardly five percent of the total wealth of the prophetic knowledge
would have reached us. This would then have caused
irrecoverable loss to the Muslim ummah.
I believe that this condition was neither necessary nor important
in the presence of the basic criterion, the Qur’ān. If, contrarily,
the compilation of the Qur’ān remained faulty, that would have
destroyed the foundations of every tenet of the religion. The least
possible mistake in the process of recording, preserving and
disseminating the Qur’ān would have produced greatest harms.
On the contrary, any shortcoming in the transmission of ahādīth
could be corrected in the light of the firm criteria provided by the
Qur’ān and the Sunnah. For the dissemination of the prophetic
Sunnah, the only practical process was to preserve his ways,
actions, sayings and tacit approvals in the form of traditions. Any
defect and shortcoming found in a tradition is corrected by
putting it against the criterion of the Qur’ān. This made it
possible that most of ahādīth preserve the meaning of the
prophetic sayings rather than words.
7.1 Conditional Allowance of Riwāyah bi al-Ma‘nā

The author of al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah, has quoted some
ahādīth in the chapter titled dhikr al-hujjah fī ijāzah riwāyah al-
hadīth ‘alā al-ma‘nā (a mention of the proofs for the allowance
for the transmission of ahādīth by meaning). These ahādīth show
that the Prophet (sws) has given conditional approval of riwāyah
bi al-ma‘nā. It has been reported thus:
We asked the holy Prophet (sws): “O Messenger of God, our

parents be sacrificed for your sake, we listen to your ahādīth
but cannot reproduce it exactly.” The Prophet (sws) replied:
“There is no harm in narrating my sayings this way as far as
you do not make the allowable as unallowable and the
unallowable as allowable.”38
This proves that unless a narrator changes the purport of the

original prophetic saying, he may opt for riwāyah bi al-ma‘nā.
A similar saying of the Prophet (sws) has been narrated on the
authority of ‘Abd Allāh b. Mas‘ūd (rta) in the following words:
Someone asked the Prophet (sws): “O Messenger of God,

when you tell us something we do not find it possible for us to
narrate it to others verbatim. What should we do?” The
Prophet (sws) replied: “You may narrate from me if you can
correctly reproduce the meaning of the original statement.”39
This means that the Prophet (sws) has left it upon the narrator
to decide whether he can retain and convey the meaning of the
original. This falls in the category of ijtihād. This shows that the
Prophet (sws) has given a principle allowance to do riwāyah bi
al-ma‘nā.
A study of the accounts of later developments shows that the
people engaged in the process of hadīth transmission have
followed this principle. I cite some sayings of the authorities in
this field: Wāthilah b. al-Asqā‘ responded to a question in the
following words: “Look, if we narrate a saying by meaning, you
should consider it sufficient.”40
38
. Ibid., 199.
39
. Ibid., 200.
40
. Ibid., 104.
Abū Sa‘īd narrates:
We would sit in the company of the Prophet (sws) (with a

purpose of listening to him). At times, ten people would listen
to the Prophet (sws) but not even any two of them could
reproduce the saying verbatim. However, all would retain and
narrate the meaning of the saying.41
Muhammad b. Sīrīn says:
I would hear a single hadīth from ten different persons. All

would narrate the same meaning in different words.42
Hasan narrates:
If you are able to reproduce meaning of ahādīth then there is

nothing wrong with changing the order of the words.43
Shu‘ayb b. al-Hujāb narrates:
Ghaylān b. Jarīr and I went to Hasan. Ghaylān asked him: “O

Abū Sa‘īd, what should I do if I find someone narrating a
[prophetic] hadīth adding or omitting something and failing to
narrate exactly what he learned?” Hasan replied: “[It is
acceptable.] We may only consider someone a liar if he does
so knowingly.”44
Consider the following fact about Anas (rta):
After narrating a prophetic tradition he would add the

following words: aw kamā qāla rasūl allāh (or as the Prophet
(sws) said).45
The above shows that the Prophet (sws) himself clarified that it
is not necessary to narrate a tradition verbatim. The narrator,
however, has to reproduce the meaning of the original. In a
41
. Ibid., 205.
42
. Ibid., 206.
43
. Ibid., 207.
44
. Ibid. 208.
45
. Ibid. 206.
nutshell, the Companions (rta) and the muhaddithūn have
accepted the traditions that were not reported verbatim provided
that the meaning of the original was retained.
7.2 Vulnerability of Riwāyah bi al-Ma‘nā

A competent narrator can, no doubt, sufficiently communicate
the meaning of a report without using the exact received
wording. If, however, he fails to communicate the message
contained in the original, he, at least, can explain the report in his
own words. In this manner he actually explicates and explains
the original received report. However, there are always chances
of error in riwāyah bi al-ma‘nā.
The inherent weaknesses in this method are obvious. Numerous
examples of errors resulting from this mode of narration were
detected even during the lifetime of the Prophet (sws). For
example many Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws) learnt from
him the supplication made before going to sleep at night. Later
on, different people reproduced it differently. Some people even
changed the meaning of the supplication they had learnt:
Barrā’ b. ‘Ᾱdhib (rta) narrates that the Prophet (sws) said:

When you go to bed you should make wudū the way you make
wudū for the Prayer. Then you should lie on the right side of
your body and make the following supplication: “My Lord, I
submit myself to you. I submit all my affairs to your lordship. I
take you as refuge while I dread from your punishment and
anticipate your mercy. There is no refuge and safety from you
except you. I believe in the Book you have revealed and the
Prophet you have appointed as your messenger (wa bi
nabiyyika alladhī arsalta).” Then the Prophet (sws) said: “If
you died while asleep, you shall die on the fitrah (nature). You
should make sure that these are the last words you utter (before
your death).” Barrā’ (rta) says that he repeated the words as
follows: “I believe in the rasūl you have sent (wa bi rasūlika
alladhī arsalta)” [instead of “bi nabiyyika alladhī arsalta, the
nabī you have sent”]. The Prophet (sws) corrected: “No. Say
wa bi nabiyyika alladhī arsalta (the Prophet nabī that you have
sent) as ra rasūl.” (Bukhārī, No: 244)
We learn that the Prophet (sws) taught his Companions (rta) the
etiquette of going to bed as well as some supplications to be said
on the occasion. He asked Barrā’ (rta) to repeat the words of the
supplication. Barrā’ (rta) replaced the words “wa bi nabiyyika
alladhī arsalta with wa bi rasūlik alladhī arsalta. The Prophet
(sws) corrected him. Barrā’ (rta) had changed the words of great
significance. The meaning of the words implied a great religious
reality. The words wa bi rasūlik alladhī arsalta do not clearly
indicate the true status of the Prophet (sws), that he was a nabī
raised to the status of rasūl. I have written extensively on the
difference between a nabī and a rasūl in my commentary on the
Qur’ān entitled Tadabbur-i Qur’ān. Every Messenger of God is a
nabī. Some nabīs, however, are also rasūl. The status of the rasūl
is superior to that of a nabī. A rasūl is sent as a Divine judge for
his people. The fate of his nation is definitely decided herein. His
addressees are annihilated in this very world if they do not hearken
towards his warnings and admonitions. If, however, they accept
his call, they are granted dominion. This is not the case with the
mission of a nabī. Now consider the words of the tradition which
the Companion Barrā’ (rta) used wrongly. The words the Prophet
(sw) taught him were “wa bi nabiyyik alladhī arsalta” (in the nabī
you have sent as a rasūl). These words highlight the true status of
the Prophet Muhammad (sws) while the words “wa bi rasūlik
alladhī arsalta” do not make this distinction clear. Furthermore, in
this phrase the words alladhī arsalta are redundant. Contrarily, the
same words put in the phrase “wa bi nabiyyik alladhī arsalta” give
a very profound meaning.
The above exemplifies a case in which the Prophet (sws) himself
corrected a narrator about one of his sayings. The Prophet (sws)
prompted the narrator because the mistake was serious. It could
have led to a misunderstanding concerning a very fundamental
philosophical religious tenet. Riwāyah bi al-ma‘nā can cause other
similar or graver differences in the religious directives of practical
nature. Consider the following example.
It has been narrated that one day a Bedouin knowingly broke
fast during the month of Ramadan. He came to the Prophet (sws)
crying. The Prophet (sws) asked him the cause of his distress. He
narrated the whole incident. The Prophet (sws) told him how he
could atone for the sinful act he had committed. The narrators of
the hadīth differ greatly over what the Prophet (sws) commanded
him to do to atone for breaking the obligatory fast of Ramadan
knowingly.
This whole incident has been recorded by Imām Muslim in his
Sahīh in two different narratives. The first of these narratives is
transmitted on the authority of Abū Hurayrah (rta) and the other
has been ascribed to ‘Ᾱ’ishah (rta). The narrative transmitted by
Abū Hurayrah (rta) follows:
A man came to the Prophet (sws). He said: “I have been

ruined, O Messenger of God!” The Prophet (sws) asked him
what had ruined him. The man replied: “I have had sexual
intercourse with my wife while fasting.” The Prophet (sws)
asked him whether he had something to buy a slave his
freedom. The man replied in the negative. The Prophet (sws)
then asked him if he could continuously fast for two months.
He again replied in the negative. The Prophet (sws) asked him
whether he could feed sixty needy people. He again replied in
the negative. Then he sat there. Meanwhile, a basket full of
dates was presented to the Prophet (sws). The Prophet (sws)
asked him to give away the basket of dates in the way of
Allah. At this, he said: “Who would need these more than me!
There is no house between these two barren plains of
Madīnah needier of these dates than mine.” At this the
Prophet (sws) smiled such that his teeth could be seen. Then
the Prophet (sws) said to him: “Go and feed your family with
these.” (Muslim, No: 1111)
Now consider the wording of a variant transmitted on the

authority of ‘Ᾱ’ishah (rta):
The Prophet (sws) said to him: “Give in charity, give in

charity.” The man explained that he had nothing to give away.
Then the Prophet (sws) commanded him to stay there. Then
two baskets of food were presented to the Prophet (sws) who
commanded the man to give those baskets of food in charity.
(Muslim, No: 1112)
If someone intends to learn how to atone for the act of breaking

an obligatory fast of Ramadan in the light of the narrative
transmitted on the authority of Abū Hurayrah (rta), he would
certainly conclude that, primarily, it is freeing a slave. Failing
this he has to continuously fast for sixty days and failing that he
has to feed sixty needy persons. The narrative transmitted by
‘Ᾱ’ishah (rta), on the contrary, does not put the issue that way. It
does not specify anything. According to ‘Ᾱ’ishah (rta), the
Prophet (sws) commanded the man merely to give in charity.
Some variants of the same tradition do not mention continuous
fasting for two months. This shows that the method of riwāyah
bi al-ma‘nā has complicated a very clear issue. This resulted in
much wrangling of jurists over the atonement for breaking an
obligatory fast knowingly.
The method of riwāyah bi al-ma‘nā has caused changes in the
meaning of many other narratives. Taking this liberty, many
people have worded various narratives differently. Many
scholastics (experts in ‘ilm al-kalām) have based some of their
erroneous beliefs on these variants of the ahādīth regarding
which we do not find a hint in the Qur’ān. Islamic beliefs, it
should be appreciated, are based only on the clear Qur’ānic
verses and not the akhbār-i āhād.
7.3 Pursuing Verbatim Narration

Sensing the danger of loss in the meaning of the narratives if
narrated by riwāyah bi al-ma‘nā, a group of scholars, from the
beginning, held that the prophetic traditions may only be
transmitted verbatim. They did not accept riwāyah bi al-ma‘nā.
Imām Mālik was one such scholar who held and promoted this
view. He has successfully met this ideal of verbatim narration of
ahādīth, at least, in the case of the statements traced back to the
Prophet (sws). This ideal is well reflected in his treatise, al-
Muwattā. If we read through it we would feel the grandeur of the
prophetic speech at many occasions. The truth of the matter,
however, is that nobody can fulfil the condition of verbatim
narration, no matter how great scholarship he shows and how
deep understanding he possesses. This explains why this view
could not be consistently practiced later on. Only a few narrators
tried to make sure that they narrate traditions verbatim. This view
could hold sway had the ummah adopted and followed it.
Contrarily, the ummah has, as a whole, adopted the practice of
riwāyah bi al-ma‘nā. I believe that this approach was correct and
practicable.
7.4 Conclusion
Most of the hadīth literature consists of the traditions which can
only be termed narration of meaning (riwāyah bi al-ma‘nā).
Naturally it was the only possible means of transmission of
tradition. The ummah has, collectively, adopted this approach; it
was widely accepted and followed. I believe that it is the only
correct approach. However, while analyzing the matn (text) of
ahādīth, we have to consider the implications of the process of
riwāyah bi al-ma‘nā which we have discussed in detail in the
foregoing pages so that the demands and prerequisites of a proper
research are fulfilled.
_____________
Chapter 8
Authoritativeness of Akhbār-i Āhād
The hadīth literature basically consists of individual-to-

individual reports (akhbār-i āhād). It is, therefore, necessary for
us to properly grasp the issue of the authenticity of akhbār-i
āhād. The unusual importance the Hadīth holds as the source of
the religion and the sharī‘ah, requires that we fully appreciate the
implications of akhbār-i āhād. The Islamic law of evidence, in
most cases, requires that a claim may only be established if two
witnesses testify to it. This makes one think whether a narrative
transmitted by a single man in each or any of the layer of the
chain of transmission gives the kind of knowledge which binds
us to accept it without exception. Many akhbār-i āhād are
transmitted by a single narrator in each or some of the layers. Do
we have to believe that a Muslim cannot go against the teachings
of such a narrative? Should an individual, for example, on
receiving a khabar-i wāhid (singular of akhbār-i āhād), conclude
that he has got the exact command of the Prophet (sws)? Before
taking up these issues, it is necessary to define the term khabar-i
wāhid.
8.1 Akhbār-i Āhād

An individual-to-individual report (khabar-i wāhid) is a report
transmitted by one or more narrators in each or any of the layers
of transmitters while short of becoming a mutawātir (concurrent)
report. This means that akhbār-i āhād include the traditions
narrated by a single narrator or more than one in any or all of the
layers in its isnād. They, however, always remain short of the
number that renders a narrative mutawātir.
The authenticity of akhbār-i āhād is disputed by fuqahā
(jurists). A brief survey of the views of the jurists and an
exposure to the nature of their difference of opinion follows:
8.2 Mālikī View

Imām Mālik and his followers do not attach any importance to
akhbār-i āhād against the consensical practice of the people of
Madīnah. They consider the practice of the people of Madīnah as
the Sunnah of the Prophet (sws) because, according to them,
Madīnah was the city of the Prophet (sws) and his Companions
(rta). A practice adopted by the habitants of Madīnah with
consensus becomes the Sunnah and, as such, it has to be
preferred over akhbār-i āhād.
The view that a practice collectively adopted by the people of
Madīnah is the Sunnah and is preferable is understandable.
However, the Mālikīs are not justified in saying that a practice
adopted and adhered to by the Muslims living in other centres is
not the Sunnah. This I say because once the Companions (rta) of
the Prophet (sws) settled in other cities, the Sunnah reached there
too. It was disseminated among the population in those cities.
People living in those centres were well acquainted with the
practices. How can then we hold that practices adopted and
adhered to by people living in other centres is not the Sunnah?
To hold that the Sunnah in a single issue cannot be different is
not tenable. I have already explained, under the discussion in the
introduction, that the Prophet (sws) has been reported to have
offered a single practice differently. This difference in forms and
observances of the practices was communicated to different cities
through the Companions (rta). Thus, people living in one centre
adopted one form or method while those of other centres adopted
a different yet acceptable way. There is nothing strange with
observing a single practice differently. Such minor differences
can easily spread and be adopted in different centres.
In cases where a practice was offered differently by people in
different cities and centres, the majority of fuqahā did not seek
conclusiveness. They always accepted the possibility that the
other ways might also be equally normal. I believe that this is the
only correct and rational view. Flesh of many animals, for
example, is allowable in the Islamic sharī‘ah. But there are
innumerable kinds of animals. It is not possible to conclusively
declare and label status of all of them. Some water animals are
considered eatable by people of one locality while the same
animals are detested as food by people of other geographical
regions while there is no express legal ruling. Keeping in mind
the above mentioned principle of the jurists we cannot validly
declare such animals harām. It would rather be better to hold that
they are not harām but we do not like to eat them.
8.3 Hanafī View

On the question of authenticity of akhbār-i āhād, the Hanafī
scholars have adopted a different stance. They do not attach much
importance to akhbār-i āhād in matters concerning ‘umūm-i balwā
(general and every day human issues).
The Hanafīs reject individual narratives in these matters on
purely rational grounds. Why a matter, involving the entire
community, should be left to be narrated by only one or two
individuals, they ask. Therefore, in such issues they prefer ijtihād
(personal reasoning) and qiyās (analogy) over a khabar-i wāhid.
For they do not believe that, in this case, the khabar-i wāhid
establishes the sunnah which rules over ijtihād and qiyās. In such
cases, they give a mujtahid (legal expert) the right to use his
personal reasoning and conclude a ruling based on analogy. This
is because, they believe, the Prophet (sws) himself has taught his
followers to use analogy and conduct ijtihād in matters regarding
which no direct Qur’ānic directive or the prophetic Sunnah is
available. The following famous narrative ascribed to the Prophet
(sws) contains this teaching:
The Prophet (sws) asked Mu‘ādh b. Jabal (rta) before sending

him to Yemen: “How will you judge a dispute presented to you
for judgement?” Mu‘ādh (rta) replied that he would decide the
matter in the light of the Book of God. The Prophet (sws) asked
him what if there is no directive in the Book of God concerning
the disputed issue. Mu‘ādh (rta) replied that he would then
decide it in the light of the Sunnah of the Prophet (sws) of God.
The Prophet (sws) then asked him what he would do if there is
no guidance in the Sunnah too. Mu‘ādh (rta) replied that in that
case, he would conduct ijtihād and that he would exert all his
might to reach at a correct conclusion. Having heard this reply
from Mu‘ādh (rta) the Prophet (sws) struck the latter’s chest
with his hands and said: “All gratitude is due to God who
guided the messenger of His Messenger to something which
pleases the Messenger of God.” (Abū Dāwūd, No: 3592)
Preferring ijtihād over akhbār-i āhād, therefore, is a more careful

religious approach. Ijtihād is based on the express directives of the
sharī‘ah established by the Prophet (sws) himself. This makes it
preferable to do ijtihād instead of relying on a khabar-i wāhid
about which we can never be sure if it is true or not for any khabar
can be true or false. Doing ijtihād, in this case, corresponds more
to the dictates of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah.
I believe that the above mentioned view of the Hanafī scholars
is not weak and untenable. However, many people find it
unacceptable. They hold that though ahādīth are not perfectly
authentic yet it is difficult to prefer ijtihād in the presence of a
hadīth. I believe this objection does not hold much water.
Every hadīth is not that authentic to be preferred over ijtihād.
Ijtihād has a strong religious basis. It earns reward even if one
reaches a wrong conclusion through it. Contrarily, the traditions
can possibly be a lie that too ascribed to the Prophet (sws), not an
ordinary one. This makes it incumbent upon a careful religious
scholar to adopt a path that is safer and well-guarded against any
possibility of falsehood.
The above is my understanding of the worth of the objection
against the Hanafī view. However, I do not understand the reason
why Hanafīs insist on that every matter of the nature of ‘umūm-i
balwā should be communicated by a very large number of
people. Why should akhbār-i āhād not accepted in such matters?
It is possible that an issue falls in the category of ‘umūm-i balwā
and it may be related to a very large number of people. Yet, in
the case of the prophetic teachings, it can be related to such an
aspect of the life of the Prophet (sws) which is not generally
accessible. To put it in other words, there could be matters about
which the Prophet (sws) did say something or set an example, but
his sayings or actions were not observed and reported by a very
large number of people. Thus, the problem lies with the mode of
communication and not the nature of the act. It can be related to
issues which are of utmost necessity in human life yet it could
still be communicated by a very few individuals. Familial and
marital issues are the examples. These issues cannot be reported
and disseminated on a large scale. Though every believer needs
to learn the marital affairs and the ways of obtaining purity after
one enters the state of impurity (as in having sexual intercourse),
yet the prophetic teachings of such issues could only be
transmitted by the wives of the Prophet (sws). Therefore, the
narratives ascribed to the wives of the Prophet (sws) like
‘Ᾱ’ishah (rta), Umm-i Salamā (rta), Hafsah (rta) and others
should be binding and authoritative for the believers regarding
the familial and marital issues be they akhbār-i āhād or
mutawātir. We may discuss preference of one such narrative over
others but we cannot reject them as invalid ahādīth.
8.4 Shāfi‘ī View

Imām Shāfi‘ī very emphatically states that individual narratives
are authoritative without exception. He stresses that even a
narrative transmitted by a single narrator in each layer of a chain
of transmission (gharīb) provides definitive authority. He has so
extensively written for the authoritativeness of akhbār-i āhād in
his works al-Risālah and Kitāb al-Umm that one wonders why he
attaches so much importance to this issue. I acknowledge his
scholarship. However, I am afraid the arguments he presents in
support of his conclusions are not directly proportional to the
importance he attaches to this issue.
I have repeatedly studied and pondered over the narratives
which Imām Shāfi‘ī has adduced as evidence to his view on the
authoritativeness of akhbār-i āhād. These narratives do not
sufficiently prove that akhbār-i āhād are binding. Contrarily,
they prove that in deciding the truthfulness or falsehood of
narratives the basic factors include the nature of the reported fact,
the circumstances and related indicators, and the character of the
narrator. Number of narrators is not that important. Sometimes,
for example, the nature of the reported fact compels one to
believe in it and in some other cases, it is the character of the
narrator that is decisive. The related information and (textual or
extra-textual) supportive indicators sometimes prove important
factors in this question. This means that the primary factor in the
question of determination of the truth value of a report is not the
number of reporters but the above mentioned factors.
The incidents Imām Shāfi‘ī has quoted include that during the
annual pilgrimage offered in the ninth year of the prophetic
migration, the Prophet (sws) appointed Abū Bakr Siddīq (rta) to
lead the pilgrims as his deputy. Later on, the Prophet (sws) sent
‘Alī (rta) as his representative to read out to the pilgrims the first
few verses of Sūrah al-Tawbah (9) which deal with those of the
polytheists who did not honour their covenants with the Prophet
(sws). They were told that war would be declared on them after
the harām months were over. Imām Shāfi‘ī holds that ‘Alī (rta)
was a single man who carried a very important directive. If the
individual narrator does not carry any authoritativeness then how
could the fate of such a large number of people be decided in the
light of the warning issued through him?
I believe that this point is not tenable. The prophetic
representatives did not work as narrators nor was the message
they conveyed similar to a khabar-i wāhid. The Muslims did not
receive and accept their message as a khabar-i wāhid. On the
contrary, they were received and perceived as the representatives
of the Prophet (sws). Their message was accepted on this very
ground. These representatives were sent on a special mission.
They were the top leaders of the Muslim community. A
messenger is a representative of an authority. Even if a common
Muslim were sent as a messenger and representative of the
Prophet (sws), his position too would have been weighed as of
‘Alī (rta). He would not have been received as a narrator of an
isolated report. Rather he would have been received as the
messenger and representative of the Prophet (sws).
This position and status of messengers is recognized all over
the world. Governments and states appoint their ambassadors,
representatives and officials to deal with others on behalf of their
governments. Their position is clear to the governments and the
subjects living in the states. Their orders and messages are
received in the light of their position as the representatives of the
government. They possess a defined authority. The concerned
people honour their status and authority. What ‘Alī (rta) and Abū
Bakr (rta) did and said during the annual pilgrimage in the ninth
year after Hijrah cannot be equated to a historical report
transmitted by an individual. To consider their action as such and
to present it as an argument to support the authoritativeness of
akhbār-i āhād is not understandable.
While arguing for the authoritativeness of akhbār-i āhād, Imām
Shāfi‘ī has also alluded to the fact that Muslims accepted the
statements of Maymūnah (rta) and ‘Ᾱ’ishah (rta) regarding the
practices and actions of the Prophet (sws). By this, he intends to
make the reader believe that the early Muslims accepted their
statements as authentic only because they held that akhbār-i
āhād give conclusive truth. I believe that this argument too does
not hold water.
People accepted the information passed on by the wives of the
Prophet (sws) regarding marital issues only because of want of
such information. It could not be obtained through any other
means. People did not accept such information as valid
considering it akhbār-i āhād. It was only because the wives of
the Prophet (sws) had a direct access to the knowledge regarding
these private and personal affairs of the prophetic life. Besides
they were appointed as teachers of the Muslims in these issues.
They were required to teach people the prophetic way of dealing
with those affairs. The Almighty says:
[O wives of the Prophet], spread the verses of God and the

wisdom which is taught in your homes. (Q 33:34)
Therefore, in this connection, the wives of the Prophet (sws)

including ‘Ᾱ’ishah (rta) and Maymūnah (rta) acted as the divinely
appointed teachers of God’s guidance under the divine command in
the above mentioned verse of the Qur’ān. They were not acting as
narrators of ahādīth. In these affairs, they were the only available
authority. Other believers, as I have mentioned above, did not have
access to this aspect of the Prophet’s life. This shows that the
religious guidance in this sphere of life was communicated to
people through a special means. This special means of transmission
of the prophetic knowledge was adopted so that the prophetic
model or practice is made known to the world regarding all affairs
including personal, familial and even conjugal. This was necessary
because the Prophet (sws) was to provide a model and act like an
exemplar regarding all aspects of human life and dealings. The way
the wives of the Prophet (sws) fulfilled this obligation needs no
explanation. The only thing that suffices as a reminder is that the
performance of this duty by the wives of the Prophet (sws) cannot
be termed transmission of knowledge through akhbār-i āhād.
All other narratives that Imām Shāfi‘ī has presented as proofs to
his thesis on the authority of akhbār-i āhād need no separate
rebuttal. They also clearly fall in the category of reports which I
discussed above and can be interpreted in the light of the above
mentioned principles. A study of those narratives will also show
that the aspects of weakness inherent in akhbār-i āhād were not
absent from the minds of the people of the first generation. They
had, therefore, been trying to remove these weak points. They
believed that the religious knowledge could be transmitted through
khabar-i wāhid and that such knowledge could not be rejected.
However, at the same time, they were aware of the weaknesses of
this mode of transmission. This is evident from the famous
narrative regarding the inheritance of a deceased grandmother. We
learn that a Companion (rta) of the Prophet (sws) reported his
knowledge concerning this issue to Abū Bakr (rta) who asked the
people if someone shared that knowledge with the narrator in
question. At this, one of audience rose and corroborated him. Abū
Bakr (rta) was satisfied. The narrative remained a khabar-i wāhid
even after corroboration by a second narrator. Yet the
corroboration added some strength to it which satisfied Abū Bakr
(rta). He did his best to ensure that he received reliable knowledge.
If he had been convinced of the authoritativeness of khabar-i
wāhid, he would not have sought the corroboratory evidence.
Imām Shāfi‘ī has brought a narrative ascribed to ‘Alī (rta) in
this discussion who has been reported to have said that if he
heard some narrative ascribed to the Prophet (sws) and he felt
satisfied in the report, he would accept it. If, however, he
doubted the reported fact, he would ask the narrator to swear an
oath and affirm that he was speaking the truth. This proves that
‘Alī (rta) had set two criteria to accept a khabar-i wāhid, personal
satisfaction and an oath by the narrator. I believe the real
criterion for accepting something is the satisfaction of the heart.
While studying the prophetic ahādīth, sometimes we feel the
Prophet (sws) must have said or done so. At the same time, there
are narratives which are problematic. This forces one to remove
the possibility of doubt to the best of one’s extent.
The saying ascribed to ‘Alī (rta) teaches us that a testimony of
an individual is not the only criterion of accepting the
authenticity of a hadīth. It is not sufficient to accept something as
a prophetic act or saying if it is narrated by a chain of
individuals. It is the nature of the reported fact, textual and
historical indicators and the person and character of the narrators
that help us obtain satisfaction in the reported fact.
8.5 The Principle View

In my opinion, Islam has not tied us with the mutawātir facts in
every worldly and religious issue. Most of the matters of human
life are run on the basis of knowledge reported through akhbār-i
āhād. The sharī‘ah and the fitrah (human nature) do not require
that we may not accept or follow a reported fact unless we are
absolutely sure of its certainty and authenticity. Such a
requirement would make life impossible. Probable truth provides
us with sufficient ground to run the affairs of life. In ordinary
human dealings and affairs we accept the reports and narrations
by every kind of people, Muslims and non-Muslims, pious and
impious. We do not reject someone’s report unless we find
something solid indicating falsehood. Therefore, in such matters,
we have to follow the custom and usual behaviour of individuals
without trying to ascertain the religious and moral status of a
narrator.
As for the religious issues, the Qur’ānic guidance requires that,
if some impious person reports something important to us, we
should analyze the issue. The Almighty says:
Believers, if some impious person reports some news to you,

thoroughly investigate the issue. (Q 49:6)
The Almighty commands us to consider personality of reporters

as well as nature, indicators and characteristics of the news while
deciding on its truth value. If the reporter is not impious (fāsiq)
then we may not critically analyze the news and the reporter even
if he gives important news. If, a fāsiq reporter communicates
something concerning ordinary matters of daily life we need not
critically analyze the report. However, if a fāsiq reporter narrates
something important then we have to analyse his report and his
character. We shall investigate his character and ability; we shall
study the nature of the news and its relevant characteristics and
indicators. If all these elements favour and corroborate the report
then we may accept it otherwise not.
8.6 Conclusion
Akhbār-i āhād are no doubt a major vehicle of transmission of
the prophetic knowledge. However, it would not be right to hold
that akhbār-i āhād alone can sufficiently establish the veracity of
the reported knowledge. Akhbār-i āhād are not rejected as
unacceptable merely because they are akhbār-i āhād. Rather,
they are relied on while being careful regarding different aspects
of weakness in them. The scholars, however, must look for ways
of eliminating the possibility of error in such reports using all
available sources and resources of knowledge. Indicators,
analogy, corroboratory evidence, oaths, and all other possible
ways of removing doubts and uncertainty involved in such
historical knowledge shall be employed. However, akhbār-i
āhād shall definitely be rejected if they contradict foundational
religious knowledge in Islam. This principle is derived from the
Qur’ān and the mutawātir Sunnah.
_____________
Chapter 9
Causes of Hadīth Fabrication
The Muslim ummah, in its entire history, has faced many kinds
of assaults by enemies of Islam. However, the hadīth fabrication
presented the most severe and unique challenge. The enemies of
Islam, in the early phase of Islamic history, decided to damage the
authenticity of the unparalleled and unexampled treasure of the
prophetic knowledge, if not destroy it altogether. Their efforts,
however, were thwarted by the efforts of imāms of the science of
hadīth criticism. May Almighty bless the souls of those imāms
who defended the treasure of prophetic knowledge! They exerted
their full efforts in sifting the true knowledge from fabrications.
They pointed out the loopholes through which the weak ahādīth
were mixed with the sound ones. The intensity of fabrications can
be imagined by considering the fact that only a few thousand
narratives could pass the test of a set criterion for the sound
ahādīth from hundreds of thousands of traditions. This renders it
important for us to discuss in detail the motives of hadīth
fabrication and try to ascertain the ways weak and fabricated
traditions were included in the sound narratives. We must also
understand the nature of this evil. For if a researcher in this field is
not fully conscious and well aware of the nature of the evil he can
hardly be expected to show the required competence.
9.1 Why were Ahādīth fabricated?

A study of the pioneer works on the principles of hadīth
criticism reveals that there were pious as well as impious motives
for fabricating ahādīth. It was not that the fabrications for pious
purposes were less harmful. Indeed both have done equal
damages to the religion. The fabrications under pious motives
have rather proved more detrimental for Islam than the ones
concocted under evil designs.
9.2 Pious Fabrications

A thorough enquiry into the issue of hadīth fabrication reveals
that there are two major pious motives behind fabrication of
ahādīth. First, people fabricated ahādīth concerning virtues and
excellences of the Qur’ānic sūrahs in order to attract people to
the Book. Second, with the aim of drawing people to do good
and avoid evil, such ahādīth were concocted and circulated
which exaggerated rewards of good deeds and punishment for
evil ones. All other types of pious fabrications have ramifications
of these two motives.
9.2.1 The First Form

People started to fabricate ahādīth with an intention to serve the
religion of God. Most of the ahādīth about excellence of reciting
any of the Qur’ānic sūrahs are examples. The ahādīth forged to
attract people towards good deeds (targhīb) and warn them about
the Last Judgment and the consequences of misdeeds (tarhīb) are
also examples of this type of fabrications. Such ahādīth tell us
that merely reciting a single sūrah of the Qur’ān suffices one as a
guarantor of success in the Afterlife. If a believer recites a sūrah
of the Qur’ān, for example, he does not need do anything else to
deserve the life of eternal bliss. Thus, these narratives promise
extraordinary rewards for a person reciting a single sūrah.
One wonders how one merits such lofty rewards by merely
uttering words of a sūrah without even understanding it. This
clearly contradicts the teachings of Islam. The Prophet (sws) is
reported to have stated that a believer will be rewarded for what
he comprehends in the recitations he makes in the Prayer. The
Qur’ān has expressly commanded that the believers should
ponder over the Book of God. It has commanded the believers to
act upon its teachings. There is no concept of heaping reward or
seeking blessings merely through chanting the words of God.
That the narratives regarding the excellence of reciting the
sūrahs of the Qur’ān are very famous and widely accepted can be
gleaned from that Zamakhsharī, a celebrated exegete of the
Qur’ān, tries to mention such a narrative at the end of almost
every sūrah in his commentary on the Qur’ān. This is in spite of
his claims to be mu‘tazilī rationalist. One wonders what becomes
of his rationality at this point.
Some experts in the science of hadīth criticism investigated
these ahādīth and discovered a certain fabricator. When asked
why he incurred such a heinous sin, he explained that he noticed
people readily learning and following the juristic work of Imām
Abū Hanīfah. This alarmed him and he decided to concoct
ahādīth eulogizing recitation of certain verses so that people
might be attracted by the Qur’ān. This motive is obviously pious.
Such ahādīth became popular and many great scholars
contributed to their spread. The experts in the science, however,
always declared them fabrications. As mentioned above, one of
the fabricators confessed his crime. These narratives, however,
could not meet the objective of the fabricators. People could not
be attracted to the Qur’ān. Contrarily, these ahādīth created the
erroneous belief that the basic purpose the Qur’ān has been
revealed to serve is not to understand and obtain guidance from it
but to earn reward by merely reciting it.
9.2.2 The Second Form

Another group of fabricators comprises reformers and pious
individuals. Directed by their mystic disposition, they forged a
lot of traditions containing warnings of punishment for the
committers of certain wrongs (tarhīb) and promising rewards of
good deeds (targhīb). The purpose was to create fear of the Last
Judgment in the hearts of people, to make them to perform
religious duties and to encourage them to avoid sinful acts. When
these fabricators were attacked by the muhaddithūn, they pleaded
that they fabricated ahādīth with the intent to call people to
virtuousness and to stop them from sinfulness. They should,
therefore, not be subjected to the strict criteria of hadīth
acceptance concluded by the muhaddithūn.
The muhaddithūn, instead of countering and rejecting these
erroneous views, showed a concessive attitude to these shallow
arguments. They practically yielded to the view of the fabricators
and subsequently confined their scrutiny to the narratives
containing legal directives (al-ahkām). Thus, they let the band to
fabricate and spread, as the prophetic word, whatever they liked.
The view of the fabricators finally dominated. Their fabrications
are diffused through esoteric literature produced by the Muslim
Sufis. I have discussed this issue in the chapter “Excellence of
the Isnād and its Inherent Limitations”.
The Sufis successfully put grave misconception in the minds of
the muhaddithūn. History proved that the stance of the latter
regarding such narratives was mere naivety. If one reads through
the works of the Sufis, one shall learn that they base their
innovatory beliefs and notions either on esoteric interpretation of
the Qur’ānic verses or baseless ahādīth. This practice is not
confined to the general class of the Sufis; even the most learned
among them take this very path.
No one doubts Imām Ghazālī’s scholarship and eruditeness. His
work Ihyā al-‘Ulūm is one of the best works written on the
subjects of tasawwuf and tadhkiyyah (purification of the self).
However, he is the least careful person among the scholars of the
ummah in quoting baseless ahādīth.
The fabricators and the concessive muhaddithūn claimed that
the weak narratives that they accepted belong to the category of
targhīb wa tarhīb. They attract people to do good and encourage
them to avoid evil. However, the truth of the matter is that these
narratives affect all spheres of human life. They even cover the
fundamental religious beliefs including the belief in unicity of
God (tawhīd) and the Last Accountability (ākhirah). It was not,
in fact, possible to contain this onslaught. For Islam is a religion,
all parts of which are inseparably interlinked. Religious
directives and beliefs as well as their philosophical bases and
wisdom are inseparably interconnected. Parts depend on the
whole. If one part is infected, the whole cannot be saved from the
ailment.
We can say that the sayings the Sufis pass as ahādīth affect
tawhīd, among other fundamental beliefs, moral theories and
Islamic worldview. It strikes even attributes of God Almighty.
Thus all the fundamentals of Islam are affected.
The muhaddithūn committed a serious wrong by accepting the
weak narratives concerning the targhīb wa tarhīb. This opened
the doors to disputations over the religion beyond reform. The
door to entry for the weak ahādīth let the ideas of Confucius,
Buddha and Zoroaster enter the religion. Alien philosophical and
esoteric notions and theories assume the form of ahādīth and find
their way into the religion of God.
Once this door for the weak and fabricated reports was opened,
it became impossible for the Muslims to parry the onslaught.
Nobody knew what to do. All believers cannot be expected to
develop in the science, act like the most careful critics and sift
the weak from the sound ahādīth. Yet, however, it is the duty of
the scholars to appreciate the evil results of the misjudgements of
the muhaddithūn.
I believe that the muhaddithūn did it with true intentions. I do
not think they committed deliberate wrong. However, it is also
true that the laxity they showed corrupted the face of Islam. It
has made falsehood dominate all aspects of religious life. Truth
was shrouded and concealed under layers of falsehood.
Although the muhaddithūn have stressed care in accepting the
weak ahādīth from the pious reformers, this emphasis is
meaningless because the muhaddithūn themselves did not make
proper efforts to analyze the narratives containing targhīb wa
tarhīb. Besides, not every narrator could analyze the isnād and
the matn. In the present day, such a work is an insurmountable
task. The duty to ferret out the truth is, now, a crown of thorn
rarely worn.
9.3 Pious Reformers

Now I will explain, with the help of some examples, the nature
of the act accomplished by the pious narrators referred to earlier.
To this issue the author of al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah has
devoted a complete chapter entitled “Chapter regarding avoiding
narrating ahādīth on the authority of individuals who are not
persons of sound memory and reasoning (dirāyah) even if they
are known for piety and worship”. In this chapter, Baghdādī
states that there are people who are famous for their God-
consciousness (taqwā) and piety. However, they are not reliable
transmitters. They cannot remember ahādīth correctly and are
not trustworthy narrators. It is not allowable to accept ahādīth
narrated by any of them. In this connection, the author recounts
many incidents. I intend to present some of the incidents reported
by him. This shall help the reader understand how the evil of
hadīth fabrication spread in the guise of God-consciousness. Abū
Sulayman, narrated from Rabī‘ah b. Abū ‘Abd al-Rahmān:
Among our brothers, there are some [who are so pious and
God-fearing] that we believe their prayers [to God] will not
be left unheard. [However, they are least trusted.] If any of
them bears witness to an ordinary fact we do not rely on their
testimony. 46
Rabī‘ah means to say that the apparent piety of these characters

made people believe that their prayers will definitely be heard by
God. They seemed to be very close to God. However, their
testimony was not trusted even in insignificant matters of daily
46
. Ibid., 158.
life let alone the hadīth transmission.
Yahyā b. Sa‘īd is reported to have said:
In the hadīth analysis, I have not seen anything more

[deceiving and, therefore,] trying than the pious narrators.47
These people are believed to be very pious and God-conscious.

However, they are the real hadīth fabricators. Their apparent
position puts a researcher in great trial.
Yahyā b. Sa‘īd Qattān says:
There are people who I can fully trust regarding a hundred

thousand dirham but I cannot trust them regarding even a
single hadīth.48
There could, thus, be a person who is trusted for precious

assets. He is, however, not trusted as a narrator of ahādīth.
Ibn Abī al-Zanād narrates from his father:
I met hundred such men in Madīnah who are reliable in every

aspect. However, they are not trusted as hadīth narrators.
Concerning them it is declared: “They are not reliable.”49
Imām Mālik says:
I have met seventy such persons near these pillars [in the
Mosque of the Prophet (sws)] who ascribed ahādīth to the
Prophet (sws). I have not accepted any hadīth from them.
This is in spite of that some among them could be trusted as
in charge of the bayt al-māl (treasury). Yet, however, they
were not reliable narrators.50
I have selected only a few from hundreds of such anecdotes.

My purpose is to show that many people have been fabricating
ahādīth, ascribing them to the Prophet (sws) and disseminating
47
. Ibid.
48
. Ibid.
49
. Ibid., 159.
50
. Ibid.
them considering it a pious deed. Imām Muslim has stated in his
introduction to al-Sahīh that there were pious people in Madīnah
whose tongues glibly narrated fabrications.
The above discussion shows that there are people who are
apparently so pious and God-fearing that one does not dare to
mistrust their statements. One feels it wrong to doubt their
testimony for fear of God. Yet, however, the experts in the
science who were very knowledgeable indeed proved that they
were unreliable. One must not blindly take anything that people
ascribe to the Prophet (sws). The above mentioned statements
ascribed to the experts of the science teach us a lesson of a very
great import. One regrets to state that people did not hearken to
these warnings. What was feared by these great experts, in fact,
came true later on. The muhaddithūn, with the only exception of
Mālikīs, bought the view that as far as the issue of the ahādīth of
targhīb wa tarhīb is concerned, they may not show best care and
may abandon carrying out rigorous investigation. They confined
their scrutiny and required care to the narratives containing legal
rulings (halāl wa harām). The muhaddithūn surrendered before
the upholders of this view perhaps because they could not defeat
this evil. They decided, as a principle, to abandon scrutinizing
such narratives. This, as has been mentioned above, relieved
them from all types of investigation and analysis on such
narratives. Fabrications and weak narratives were left to reign
supreme in the Muslim beliefs and practices and thus all heresies
and innovations fed on them.
9.4 Hadīth Fabrication for Evil Purposes

The above discusses the pious motives for hadīth fabrication.
People have been engaged in fabricating ahādīth for evil motives
as well. Two evil motives for hadīth fabrications are prominent;
first, seeking fame and prominence, and second, introducing
innovations in the religion of God.
9.4.1 Fabrication for Fame

This is known that in the early period of Islamic history a
narrator of ahādīth commanded great respect. No other
accomplishment was considered more respectable. The fame that
could be earned by merely narrating a single hadīth was usually
unparalleled. Hadīth narration was, therefore, the most cherished
engagement and a very popular vocation. People were greatly
attracted to this activity. Those known to have related a hadīth by
a highly valued and rare isnād attracted even more love and
respect from people. People would throng towards them and
would try hard to meet them. Seekers of ahādīth would travel
from far off places to visit such people bearing great difficulties.
The roads to their hometowns grew busier. These people were
respected not only by the students of prophetic ahādīth but also
by those of the rich and the rulers who had regard for knowledge
and wisdom. They too would express reverence for these persons
believed to be possessed of great prophetic knowledge. They too
would travel to the hometowns of these teachers of ahādīth
despite physical hardships and financial costs. Something that
popular and, hence, a source of respect and reverence attracts all
kinds of people, pious and evil. Evil people are attracted towards
it with a purpose to earn fame and other monitory benefits. This
makes it difficult for masses to differentiate between those who
seek such a valued thing with purity of intention and those who
seek it for mundane purposes.
The author of al-Kifāyah has an interesting story to tell us.
Someone invented twelve ahādīth. He was a hero. “From where
did you obtain those narratives?” it was asked. The man
answered: “From someone endowed with this knowledge by the
Almighty Allah.” He could not name the source. Of course, there
was none. It is obvious that in his fervour to earn false fame, he
went as far as to inventing ahādīth. A person, at this stage, tries
to have a narrative related. When he fails to obtain a sound
narrative, he opts for a weak. If he fails to obtain even a weak
narrative, he forges one. He has to possess himself of a hadīth by
hook or by crook.
9.4.2 Fabrication for Innovations

It was the innovators who benefited from inventing ahādīth the
most of all. Heretic sects which emerged in the Muslim ummah
including Khawārij, Shī‘ī, and Murjites51 are examples. Some of
them had political motives too. This made them fabricate ahādīth
expressive of the excellence of their beloved leaders and imāms,
51
. The author of the article on Murjites in Shorter Encyclopedia of
Islam writes: “One of the early sects of Islam, the extreme opponents of
the Khawārij. The latter thought that a Muslim by committing a moral
sin becomes a kāfir. The Murji’ah, on the other hand, were of opinion
that a Muslim does not lose his faith through sin.”
and condemnation of their opponents. They heaped up
propaganda material for or against certain individuals. Besides,
they had developed certain beliefs divorced from the teachings of
Islam. When they intended to mix their heretic beliefs in the
Islamic faith they had, to their service, the easiest method of
hadīth fabrication. They disseminated the fabrication in order to
make the ummah accept their heresies as the part of the religion.
This was because they had failed to base their innovations on the
Qur’ān. They, therefore, disguised in the form of a hadīth
anything they intended to introduce as part of the religion. In this
manner, their heresies became popular for it was easy for the
generality to accept anything however removed from religion
presented in the form of a prophetic hadīth.
These people successfully pretended that their heresies were
based in the Qur’ān. This too was possible only because some of
the exegetes mentioned in their commentaries baseless ahādīth
without bothering to investigate their authenticity. The words and
expressions of the Qur’ān are twisted to mean something new
and baseless. The innovators could not have used the Qur’ān, had
the careless exegetes not opened this door for them. For those
who interpret the Qur’ān in accord with their heretic beliefs and
innovations are thwarted by the Qur’ān itself. Thus, in order to
make the Qur’ānic expressions say that which corroborates their
beliefs they resort to esoteric interpretation of the text.
Thus, when heretics found it impossible to incorporate their
innovations in the religion basing it on the Qur’ān they relied on
fabricating ahādīth to be welcomed by great a success. Whatever
lies they invented and ascribed to the Prophet (sws) were received
by the opportunists and disseminated in the public speedily.
We should not underestimate the fabrications and lies spread in
this way. A huge number of fabrications have been incorporated
in the Muslim literature. It would not be an exaggeration to say
that the number of fabricated ahādīth reaches hundreds of
thousands. This can be gleaned from the following reports:
Hammād b. Salamah was heard saying: “The heretics have

fabricated and disseminated twelve thousand ahādīth.52
Hammād b. Zayd narrated from Ja‘far b. Sulaymān that he
52
. Khatīb Baghdādī, al-Kifāyah fī ‘Ilm al-Riwāyah, 158.
heard Mahdī say that one of the heretics confessed that he had
fabricated four hundred ahādīth which gained currency.53
If a single fabricator can invent four hundred ahādīth and

successfully disseminate them in public, how dangerous would
be the collective result of such endeavours by all the adherents of
the strayed and heretic sects. Keeping this situation in
perspective, we do not find it strange that Imām Bukhārī and
Imām Muslim chose a few thousand narratives out of millions of
ahādīth in circulation.
9.5 The Muhaddithūn on the Innovators

The muhaddithūn adopted a concessive attitude in response to
the efforts of the pious people to disseminate weak and fabricated
narratives containing targhīb wa tarhīb. Similarly, they adopted a
weak stance regarding the forgeries of the heretics. Instead of
curbing the evil, their attitude encouraged it.
Imām Mālik, nevertheless, adopted a sound stance in this
regard. According to him, it is prohibited to accept a hadīth
narrated by stray people who lead others into error. He adopted
such an uncompromising attitude that he did not even consider it
allowable to narrate a hadīth by meaning (bi al-ma‘nā) and
accepted verbatim reports only. The following statement ascribed
to him truly depicts his unbending attitude in this regard. He said:
“I have met seventy such persons near these pillars [in the
Mosque of the Prophet (sws)] who ascribed ahādīth to the
Prophet (sws). I have not accepted any hadīth narrated by them.
This is in spite of that some among them could be trusted as in
charge of the bayt al-māl (treasury). Yet, however, they were not
reliable narrators.”54 This was the principle he expressly held and
faithfully followed. One may find narratives in his book that do
not pass this test. In such cases, one should give him some
allowance. He was working in an environment where everyone
accommodated falsehood. In such situations, even a very strong
person can stumble a little.
Contrarily, Imām Shāfi‘ī, Imām Ahmad b. Hanbal, Imām Abū
Hanīfah and Qādī Abū Yūsuf adopted an untenable stance on this
issue. These people invented strange and queer arguments to
accommodate the narratives by the inventors. Some of them held
53
. Ibid.
54
. Ibid., 159.
that no body can be declared non-Muslim even if he adheres to
waywardness and interprets the sources according to his whims.
This leads to the conclusion, they say, that the ahādīth narrated
by him should not be rejected. Thus, according to them, someone
offering wrong interpretation of a religious text may not be
condemned as a non-believer. This view is obviously weak and
untenable. We know that open and clear rejection of Islam is
seldom committed. Mostly people take shelter in baseless
reinterpretations of the texts. That is why the Shī‘ī, Khawārij,
Murjites, Qadariyyah and many other sects give a particular
interpretation to the texts which accords to their beliefs and
personal leanings and then declare it the true form of religion
which they profess and follow. We see that, even in this day,
many kinds of waywardness are being adopted which are not
declared and professed openly. Nor can such waywardness be
considered an open rejection of the faith. Contrarily, all such
transgressions are incorporated in the religion through reliance
on misinterpretation and reinterpretation of the source texts.
Therefore, the accommodative attitude our imāms showed in
response to the evil of the inventors is obviously naïve. These
scholars have not fully investigated and properly analyzed the
possible consequences and implications of their view.
Some scholars on the other hand differentiate between the
innovators who profess their adherence to the innovations they
introduce and those who do not openly commit such a
transgression. These scholars hold that they would not accept
narratives transmitted by a person who calls other people to
adopt the inventions in the religion he has introduced or which he
adheres to. However, they consider it allowable to accept the
ahādīth narrated by such a fabricator who himself adheres to
heresies but does not call others to follow it. Thus, according to
them, a staunch Shī’ī or Khārijī can narrate acceptable ahādīth, if
he keeps from openly confessing his heresy and calling others to
it. A little deliberation shows that this viewpoint is not
understandable. For the one who adopts a belief considering it
the true religion divulged by God would not narrate anything
other than that which corresponds to his personal views. He
would only narrate things he hears from his religious leaders.
This fact alone renders the stance of the imāms untenable.
Another group of scholars held that we may only reject ahādīth
by a specific category of the religious innovators. As for other
innovators, their ahādīth may be accepted and reported further.
These scholars, therefore, accept ahādīth from all innovators with
the only exception of a certain group called rawāfid. The question,
however, is who would decide which group of the innovators is to
be rejected and which is to be accommodated. Who carries a meter
measuring the level of heresy? I believe we may only set a
concrete principle and apply it to all equally. Either all the
innovators are unworthy as narrators or they are acceptable.
The concessive attitude adopted by the above mentioned three
views gradually got currency. It reigned on the minds of the
believers. What is worse is that even the most expert among the
muhaddithūn accepted narratives from innovators. This is why
the works compiled by these muhaddithūn contain a lot of
fabrications and weak narratives. This has made it very difficult
for the experts to investigate these narratives afresh and sift the
fabrications from the original and the weak from the sound.
Khatīb Baghdādī quoted ‘Alī b. al-Madīnī:
Had I rejected the narrators of ahādīth from the people of

Basrah considering their view on the issue of qadar
(predestination) and had I rejected the narrators from Kūfah
doubting their adherence to shī‘ism, the hadīth works would
become empty. 55
In this connection, another scholar, Muhammad b. Na‘īm al-

Dabbī says that when he asked Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muhammad b.
Ya‘qūb about Fadl b. Muhammad al-Sha‘rānī, he replied:
He is a sadūq.56 However, he was one of the extremist Shī‘īs.

It was asked: “You have accepted his narrative and have
reported it in your work “al-Sahīh?” He replied: This is
because the book of my teacher is replete with narratives
transmitted by shī‘ī narrators.57
The teacher here refers to Imām Muslim and the book of the
teacher is Sahīh of Muslim.
Evil consequences of accepting ahādīth from the shī‘ī narrators
55
. Ibid., 129.
56
. The term sadūq is applied to those of the narrators who are
considered to be somewhat reliable but not thiqah (reliable).
57
. Ibid., 131.
cannot be discussed in detail here. However, one thing must be
kept in mind: those who cannot differentiate between the genuine
and the fabricated swallow poison taking it to be elixir.
9.6 Conclusion
We can guard the religion only by sound knowledge. The
scholars must develop understanding of the basic sources of
religious knowledge in Islam, the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. The
struggle to safeguard the religion demands firm, sound and
uncompromising faith as well as commitment to obtain the true
knowledge.
Ahādīth help us know the genuine Sunnah of the Prophet
(sws). The hadīth literature is the record of the Sunnah. Muslim
scholars have indeed put unparalleled efforts to preserve the
prophetic knowledge. At the same time, it is also true that
endeavours of evil factions to fabricate ahādīth have left their
marks on the literature. Fabrication was done for pious as well as
evil motives. The muhaddithūn needed to show more care in
closing the door for fabricators. Their weak response to
fabricators’ efforts made it possible for the latter to disseminate
fabrications which found way into all the major hadīth works.
Presently it is incumbent upon every such scholar as specializes
in the hadīth studies to make sure that the hadīth he is relying on
in an issue is actually the word of the Prophet (sws) and is in
accord with the Qur’ānic teachings on the issue. It should not be
affected by the onslaughts of the innovators.
_____________
Chapter 10
Primary Sources of Hadīth Study
The Muslim ummah has accomplished an unparalleled work.

The great muhaddithūn have, even in the early period of Islamic
history, to all possible human extent, strove to safeguard the
prophetic knowledge, sifted and separated it from the weeds of
fabrication. They stored it in reliable compilations. This proves
that the hadīth compilation was done under the firm principles
set by the experts in the science. It was accomplished between
the middle of the second century Hijrah to the middle of the
third. This period can be called the prime youth of hadīth
compilation. It was during this period that the treasure of
prophetic hadīth was recorded in the books. The appearance of
the books and written record marks the end of the oral tradition.
The books compiled during this period earned acceptance and
fame both among common people as well as scholars.
It is a known fact that during the period of oral transmission
and narration of the prophetic hadīth, the practice of fabricating
lies and ascribing them to the Prophet (sws) was done on a great
scale. I have presented a thorough analysis of the practice of
hadīth fabrication in the preceding chapter. We learned that
ahādīth were fabricated for pious as well as impious purposes.
Though this evil design was carried out in a systematic way on a
large scale, yet, the Muslim scholars, who engaged themselves in
the science of jarh wa ta‘dīl, followed the fabricators closely and
exposed them. The fabricators were out to carve lies and ascribe
them to the Prophet (sws). This they did. However, the tireless
efforts of the expert muhaddithūn made sure that such inventions
were not included in the prophetic traditions. The satanic
fabrications could not become part of the religion of God which
generally remained pure of these assaults. The fabrications that
were successfully added to the prophetic knowledge are not
hidden so as not to be detected by a man of sound knowledge and
religious vision. The only condition, however, is that the student
of the prophetic traditions and the religion appreciates his duty to
discern falsehood included in the prophetic knowledge. Such
vigilance is, in fact, required in every science however mundane
it may be in its nature. It is not peculiar to the proper analysis of
the prophetic ahādīth.
We know that the hadīth literature is very vast and spans over
thousands of pages making up dozens of works. It is an ocean of
knowledge. A very large number of ahādīth was compiled by
different people in those times. These narratives were obtained
from various sources. Thus, the work accomplished by different
scholars in different times cannot be expected to be of the same
degree of soundness. All cannot be expected to be obtained from
the same source or from different sources of the same authority.
This is why the muhaddithūn have categorized the hadīth works
considering the soundness and weakness of the narratives of the
ahādīth mentioned in them. They put Muwattā of Imām Mālik,
Sahīh of Imām Bukhārī and Sahīh of Imām Muslim in the first
category. These three sources include all types of reliable
narratives including sahīh (sound), mutawātir (concurrent) and
hasan (sound but next to sahīh). The second category consists of
the sunan-i arba‘ah (the four sunan) i.e. Sunan of Tirmidhī,
Sunan of Abū Dāwūd, Sunan of Nisā’ī and Sunan of Ibn Mājah.
All the ahādīth contained in this group of works are not equally
sound. They do not match the authenticity characteristic of the
narratives contained in the works of the first category named
above. Though we cannot say that the compilers of these books
have shown laxity in gauging ahādīth on the principles set by
them, yet, however, the narrators of the ahādīth in these books
are not meticulous and good memorisers. The scholars of the
later generations declared these works as widely accepted by the
ummah in spite of their weakness. These works too are now
considered a source of religious knowledge. There are sound
ahādīth in other works which pass the criteria for acceptable
ahādīth. These sound narratives contained in various other works
of lesser reliability are pearls scattered and mixed in weeds. It is
only experts in the science who can make use of them. The
muhaddithūn consider the above mentioned books of the first and
second category as generally sound and reliable. These books are
considered the basic sources. I believe that every work among
these has a distinctive features and characteristics.
10.1 Natural Approach of Hadīth Study

In order to best utilize ahādīth, one has to critically analyse and
ponder over the entire corpus of the hadīth literature. The first
thing one must learn in this regard is to appreciate the natural
way of studying ahādīth. It is not understandable and natural to
start studying ahādīth from anywhere. This removes the use of
the whole exercise. One does not gain anything. Take, for
example, the study of the Qur’ān. We know that there are various
commentaries on the Book. However, there are only three
exegetical works that can be termed as the primary and
fundamental sources of the Qur’ānic commentary. These include
Al-Tabarī, al-Kashshāf and Tafsīr al-Kabīr. All other tafsīr
works have been compiled in the light of these major works.
Similarly, in my view, the sound method of understanding
ahādīth is that, at first, one selects the primary sources in the
discipline. Then, one proceeds on to thoroughly ponder over the
narratives contained in these books. He should then be able to
grasp everything. If one finds in them something doubtful
however tiny, he should mark it. Then one should collate all the
material that deals with the issue under study from the entire
literature. He would, thus, be able to set before him all the
relevant material for study. This way a scholar continues
pondering over doubtful narrative until he is able to give a clear
and decisive verdict regarding its origin and teachings. This
process will not only prove helpful in deciding on the hadīth in
question but also provide the researcher with an opportunity of
acquainting himself with the entire corpus of the hadīth
literature.
10.2 The Primary Sources

By the primary sources, I mean works in a discipline that are
original contributions. Such works are acknowledged as the
foundation and primary source in that particular discipline. It is
utterly impossible for a researcher in a discipline to neglect or
ignore the view of the primary sources. If he is able to select the
proper sources and has thoroughly studied them it means that he
has set on the right direction. However, only experts in the
discipline may select the primary sources. It is not for a
commoner or an initiate to decide which works are primary
sources in a given discipline.
What are then the primary sources of the prophetic traditions?
Different answers can be given to this question for there is a
room to differ over it. After the lifelong study of the hadīth
literature, I have formed the view that the following three works
form the primary source in this discipline: Muwattā of Imām
Mālik, Sahīh of Imām Bukhārī and Sahīh of Imām Muslim.
When the student of the hadīth literature thoroughly studies and
critically analyses these three works, he can be said to have
studied the primary sources of the hadīth literature. An in-depth
study of these works does not leave the student of the Hadīth in
need to study rest of the kind.
If we study these three works in such a way that everything is
on our fingertips, then we may learn the major difficulties in this
discipline. We learn the basic questions in the hadīth criticism
and identify its major problems. We learn which narratives are
original prophetic teachings and which ones give rise to doubts
and require further research. We can then mark the problematic
narratives and discuss them in detail before forming an opinion.
Some issues, no doubt, call for a long study and thorough
analysis. Such issues will need in-depth analysis. This will take
us to study rest of the hadīth literature.
Suppose, for example, we find a narrative, which creates some
doubts in our mind. We will need to look for all the narratives
discussing this issue in other works. We will study the chain of
narrators of all the relevant narratives. Then we will study the
wordings of the different versions. We will also need to observe
the difference in the wording of the first narrative and the others.
We will try to ascertain to what extant the collated material can
prove helpful in solving the relevant questions. As a result, we
are forced to study the entire hadīth literature in order to assess
and understand a single narrative. Consequently, we are able to
grasp all the works of the hadīth literature. We also come to learn
in what respect a particular hadīth work is helpful. After going
through this process in a couple of issues, we will have enabled
ourselves to fully comprehend importance of different hadīth
works.
Why have I given the above mentioned hadīth works primary
importance? I have selected them from the entire literature
because the ummah has always preferred them over the rest of
the compilations. This preference is indeed an acknowledgement
by the ummah of the greatness and extraordinary importance of
these works. This is not an accidental choice. There are certain
solid and understandable reasons for which the ummah has
preferred these three works over the rest. The reasons which
account for this preference for these books are given below. This
will also help us understand the salient and distinguishing
features of these works.
10.3 Distinguishing Qualities of Muwattā

Muwattā is the first effort to compile ahādīth. This work earned
fame and eternal acknowledgment. The book is attributed to a
leading Madinan jurist and muhaddith, Imām Abū ‘Abd Allāh
Mālik b. Anas b. ‘Ᾱmir (93-179 AH). He compiled this book
after carefully selecting one thousand traditions from almost one
hundred thousand narratives before him. He took forty years in
accomplishing this work. After its completion, he presented it to
seventy scholars of repute from Madīnah. Imām Shāfi‘ī is
reported to have said that no book is sounder than Muwattā of
Imām Mālik except the Qur’ān.58
Over one thousand disciples of the said imām have transmitted
this work from him. This has resulted in differences in the text in
various instances. There are thirty known versions of the work of
which the most famous is the one transmitted by Yahyā b. Yahyā
Laythī Undulusī.
I believe that the principles of accepting ahādīth which the
imām has followed in this book are very reliable. This makes his
work very distinct. The care he has shown in this process of
hadīth selection becomes obvious to every reader.
The first distinguishing characteristic of the compilation is its
comprehensiveness and briefness. In spite of the fact that this is a
short work in relation to other works of the kind, it has proved
comprehensive and covers all the necessary issues.
The second distinguishing characteristic of Muwattā is that its
author has shown great care in taking only verbatim narratives.
He adopted a very well balanced approach regarding accepting
the narratives which preserve only meaning. He does not, at
least, accept a narrative containing the prophetic statement if it is
not reported verbatim. He insists that the words of the Prophet
(sws) must be reported verbatim. This means that he does not
accept a marfū‘ hadīth (ascribed to the Prophet (sws) himself) if
it is not verbatim transmission of the words of the Prophet (sws).
58
. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd limā fī al-muwattā min al-ma‘ānī wa
al-asānīd, vol. 1 (Morocco: Dār al-Nashr, 1387 AH), 76.
He was so conscious regarding the marfū‘ hadīth reports that he
even gave consideration to letters, prepositions and particles like
wāw, tā, bā etc. in them.
The third distinguishing feature of Muwattā is that its author is
more careful in accepting narratives from the innovators than the
generality of muhaddithūn. He does not consider it allowable to
accept a narrative transmitted by innovators even if they do not
confess and invite others to their innovations. He generally
declares such to be unworthy and unreliable narrators.
The fourth distinguishing feature of this book is its literariness.
It contains highly literary form of the classical Arabic. This helps
readers develop the ability to understand the language of the
prophetic traditions.
Here it would not be out of place to mention that there still are
weak and unreliable narratives in the book. These narratives have
not been included by the author himself. They, on the contrary,
have been added to the original. Thus, they are mere exceptions
to the sound original content of the book. We know that the book
has been transmitted from the imām by many people and has
reached us through many chains of narrators. This made it
possible for those on the lookout to incorporate spurious things in
the genuine content. Still, however, a scholar with a sound
knowledge can easily discern fabrications and weak narratives
and distinguish them from sound ones.
It is also important to note that some of the ‘Abbāsī caliphs
were involved in persuading Imām Mālik to compile this
extraordinary work. Their blessed intentions thus have a part in
this great accomplishment. Their efforts are really commendable.
They intended to make Imām Mālik write a book which could
help in curbing the ever-increasing current of juristic differences
in the ummah.
We learn that during the second century Hijrah, the juristic
differences among the ummah increased. Apprehending the evil
consequences of such tendencies, the caliph Abū Ja‘far Mansūr,
during his visit to Hijāz in the year 148 AH, brought it to the
notice of Imām Mālik that juristic differences were increasing
among the ummah. He apprehended an immanent disorder
arising out of this situation. He requested Imām Mālik that he
should be permitted to issue a caliphal decree binding all the
people to follow his opinions on juristical matters. Imām Mālik,
however, did not approve it. He said that every group follows
different imāms. Their views are based on the understanding and
views of the pious elders. He requested the caliph to leave those
people on what they were inclined to follow in these matters. At
this response from the Imām, Abū Ja‘far Mansūr kept silence.
He, however, did not let go of the thought that the imām should
compile a book which could work as a basis for the legal code of
the country and work as a unifying force for all believers. In 163
AH, he went to offer pilgrimage again. He met Imām Mālik and
presented his wish before him. This time, he was persuasive. He
presented his view forcefully and in detail. He said: “O Abū
‘Abd Allāh, take up the reign of the discipline of fiqh in your
hands. Compile your understanding of every issue in different
chapters for a systematic book free from the extremism of ‘Abd
Allāh b. ‘Umar (rta), concessions and accommodations of ‘Abd
Allāh b. ‘Abbās (rta) and unique views of ‘Abd Allāh b. Mas‘ūd
(rta). Your work should exemplify the following principle
statement of the Prophet (sws): “The best issues are those which
are balanced.” It should be a compendium of the agreed upon
views of the Companions (rta) and the elder imāms on the
religious and legal issues. Once you have compiled such a work
then we would be able to unite the Muslims in following the
single fiqh worked by you. We would then promulgate it in the
entire Muslim state. We would order that no body acts contrary
to it.”59
It is said that Imām Mālik fulfilled this wish of the caliph and
compiled the Muwattā. He, however, did not agree to the caliphal
view that the book should be promulgated as the national law.
Historical reports attest that another ‘Abbāsī caliph Hārūn al-
Rashīd too expressed similar wishes before Imām Mālik who
remained unmoved.
Apparently, Imām Mālik thwarted the caliphal wish. He,
however, compiled Muwattā, a great favour to the Muslims. He
kept before his eyes the target of removing the juristic
differences between the scholars of the ummah. He targeted a
book that comprehensively treats all pertinent issues.
Shāh Walī Allāh (1703-1763) attached great importance to
Muwattā during his efforts to serve the prophetic traditions. It is,
59
. Ibrāhīm b. ‘Alī b. Muhammad b. Farhūn al-Ya‘murī al-Mālikī, al-
Dībāj al-Madhhab fī Ma‘rifah A‘yān ‘Ulamā’ al-Madhhab, 1st ed., vol.
1 (Beirut: Dār al-Nashr, Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 1996), 25.
perhaps, considering the importance of the work in the hadīth
literature that he penned two commentaries on it written in two
major languages of the Muslims in that time, Urdu and Persian.
Those exposed to the views and thoughts of Shāh Walī Allāh
know that he has exerted his every effort in saving the Muslims
from harms of juristic disputes. He intended to bring the
discipline of Islamic fiqh on a path that helps remove disputes.
He pursued the great cause started by Imām Mālik. Taking light
from the works of Shāh Walī Allāh and inspired by his blessed
wishes I have written the book “Islāmī Riyāsat Mēn Fiqhī
Ikhtilāfāt kā Hal” (Resolving Juristic Differences in the Muslim
State).
10.4 The Status of the two Sahīhs

A few thousand ahādīth contained in Sahīh of Bukhārī and
Sahīh of Muslim have been selected from hundreds of thousands
of traditions. One can easily understand the level of scholarship
the authors of these works showed and the extent of hardships
they might have suffered in the process of sifting the sound
narratives from a huge mix of fabrications and unsound ahādīth.
As a result of the efforts of these great scholars, we find genuine
narratives compiled in proper books. All the narratives contained
in these books are reported through isnāds consisting of reliable
narrators in all the layers. Thus, the chain of guarantors of each
hadīth contained in these two books leads us directly to the
Prophet (sws). Generally we do not doubt that isnāds in these
narratives would be suffering from discontinuity or any of the
narrators in the chains would be committing irsāl60 or tadlīs.61
We must appreciate and acknowledge the extraordinary efforts
of these imāms. Their services, in this discipline, are so great that
we shall ever remain indebted to them. Considering the
60
. When a successor (tābi‘ī) ascribes a narrative to the Prophet (sws)
leaving out the name of the sahābī from whom it is narrated he is said
to have committed irsāl. Such a narrative is called mursal. (al-Suyūtī,
Tadrīb al-Rāwī, Ist ed., (Beirut: Dār Ihyā’ al-Turāth al-‘Arabī, 2001),
168.)
61
. The practice of deliberately calling the source with a little or rarely
known name, surname or appellation to make the hadīth more attractive
is termed as tadlīs. Another form of tadlīs is when a narrator ascribes a
narrative to someone among his peers from whom he has not heard it.
(Ibid., 197-200.)
soundness of these two books, the ummah has acknowledged
them as the most important and primary sources of the prophetic
hadīth from the classical times. Their status is not shared by any
other work with the only exception of Muwattā of Imām Mālik.
All the other works produced later are a mere imitation of the
excellent scholarship exhibited by these two scholars.
It is important to note that Imām Bukhārī and Imām Muslim
have not recorded in their books all that can be termed as sahīh
hadīth by the experts in the science. There is a limited number of
narratives which both of these imāms acknowledged as sahīh yet
they did not include them in their compilations. Such narratives
are recorded either in the remaining four works usually called
sunan-i arba‘ah or some other compilations.
A group of scholars of the ummah acknowledges superiority of
Sahīh of Bukhārī over Sahīh of Muslim while another group
attaches more importance to the latter work. The majority
considers Sahīh of Bukhārī superior to Sahīh of Muslim in status
and soundness. However, most of the scholars from the western
part of the Islamic world prefer Sahīh of Imām Muslim. I believe
that both of these works enjoy equal status. Both are equally
important. Both have distinctive qualities and features and it is
not necessary to prefer one over the other. The truth of the matter
is that each is matchless in its own right. Now I wish to explain
this point in the following pages.
10.5 Distinctive Qualities of Sahīh of Bukhārī

Sahīh of Bukhārī is the work by a great scholar of the hadīth
criticism, Imām Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muhammad b. Ismā‘īl al-
Bukhārī (194-256 AH). He selected a few thousand ahādīth from
five hundred thousand narratives. He spent sixteen years in
sifting, selecting, researching on and compiling the traditions in
this excellent work. He states that he benefited from more than a
thousand teachers and narrators of ahādīth. Almost seventy
thousand students learnt this book from Imām Bukhārī.
The first distinctive quality of Sahīh of Bukhārī is the quality
and soundness of the chain of narrators of the selected ahādīth.
In this respect, it outmatches all other works with the only
exception of Muwattā of Imām Mālik. The criterion Imām
Bukhārī set for the analysis and critical investigation of the isnād
reaches the point of excellence. He has set before him two
principle criteria for the sound narratives. First, the lifetime of a
narrator should overlap with the lifetime of the authority from
whom he narrates. Second, it should be verifiable that narrators
have met with their source persons. They should also expressly
state that they obtained the narrative from these authorities.
Imām Muslim, on the contrary, considers the possibility of the
meeting of a narrator with the authority as sufficient proof for his
obtaining ahādīth from him. If it can be historically established
that the narrator and the authority lived in the same period of
time, Imām Muslim would consider it a sufficient proof for their
exchange of knowledge. He would not insist that the meeting of
the narrator and the authority he quotes should be independently
established. Imām Bukhārī, we have seen, insists on the meeting
of the narrator and the source. To him, meeting of the both must
be established independently or a reliable narrator should
expressly state that he obtained ahādīth from a particular
authority. Imām Muslim, however, is so much confident on and
strongly committed to his view in this regard that he has severely
criticised the view of Imām Bukhārī in his introduction to his
Sahīh. However, a careful analysis of the views of both the
scholars would lead one to conclude that the view of Imām
Muslim is not well grounded. His confidence in his viewpoint
and his severe criticism of Imām Bukhārī’s view does not affect
the reality of the matter. The view held by Imām Bukhārī is
sounder, established and well argued.
The second distinctive quality of Sahīh of Bukhārī is that in
spite of the fact that the author has benefited from the knowledge
of more than a thousand scholars and narrators of the prophetic
hadīth, he accepted the narratives from only those who,
according to his knowledge, not only believed in Islam but
practiced its teachings. With a theological view, this aspect adds
to the prominence of the work. A careful reading of the book
shows that Imām Bukhārī has considered this aspect in the
arrangement and ordering of the topics. He specifically targeted
rooting out the evil of secession introduced by the Murjites and
their brotherly groups.
In spite of his efforts, however, we see that the beliefs held by
the Murjites have been practically adopted by the majority of the
Muslim world. Importance of practicing the religious teachings
has vanished from the Muslim mind. It is considered sufficient
for success in the Afterlife that one has faith in the fundamental
beliefs of Islam and ceremonially follows some basic commands.
Whereas the truth of the matter is that, in Islam, belief is of no
use unless it is reflected in one’s actions. If beliefs are not
corroborated by actions of the believer, they would not avail him
anything. Belief without practice is like a dead stem of a tree
from which no shoots and branches of good and pious deeds
spring. It is only through practical adherence that beliefs of a
believer is set firm, nourished and strengthened. It is only
practical adherence to the beliefs that is accepted by God. It
grants the person excellence and high status in the sight of God.
In his Sahīh, Imām Bukhārī has fully clarified this fact in the
light of the prophetic ahādīth.
The third distinguishing quality of Sahīh of Bukhārī is its
particular arrangement and ordering of chapters. This expresses
the profound knowledge of the author and his understanding of
the religion. This has made the book more useful guide in
training and nourishing the proper thought and understanding of
the religious disciplines. Its excellence, thus, rests in the fact that
it moves the heart, stirs the mind and forces the reader into
pondering over the fundamental religious issues. Consequently,
the book develops proper understanding of the religion in the
reader.
10.6 Distinctive Qualities of Sahīh of Muslim

The author of Sahīh of Muslim is a great scholar of the third
century, Imām Abū al-Husayn Muslim b. Hajjāj b. Muslim (206-
261 AH). He investigated three hundred thousand narratives of
which he selected only a few thousands for his Sahīh. He was
rightfully proud of this great achievement for he showed great
care and exerted great efforts in selection and compilation of the
material. He would boastfully say that if the muhaddithūn
continued writing ahādīth for two hundred years, they would still
remain indebted to his work. He claimed that he had not selected
or rejected any hadīth without thorough investigation.
The first distinctive quality of Sahīh of Muslim is that the
author recorded only such narratives as were reported by two
reliable successors from two Companions (rta) which
subsequently travelled through two independent unbroken isnāds
consisting of sound narrators. Imām Bukhārī, as we have seen,
has not followed such strict criterion.
The second distinguishing feature of the book is its scientific
arrangement of themes and chapters. The author, for example,
selects a proper place for the narrative and, next to it, puts all its
versions. It is useful in that it collates all the relevant narratives
together. A researcher can study and take help from all related
ahādīth put at a single place. Imām Bukhārī has, as we saw
earlier, not followed this method. He scatters different versions
of a narrative and the related material in different chapters. He
does not leave the reader with an opportunity to consult them
together. This arrangement of the narratives helps greatly in
studying the ahādīth which invite doubts and confusions and
require great deliberation and in depth study. Consequently, in
the exercise of understanding ahādīth, Sahīh of Imām Muslim
offers the best material to the students.
The third distinctive quality of Sahīh of Muslim is that the
author informs us whose wordings among the narrators he has
used. For example he says: haddathanā fulān wa fulān wallafz
lifulān (A and B has narrated this hadīth to us and the wording
used here is by A). Similarly he mentions whether, in a particular
hadīth, the narrators have differed over the wordings even over a
single letter of zero semantic significance. He also informs the
readers if narrators have differed over a specific quality,
surname, relation or any other fact about a narrator in the chain.
This proves the trustworthiness, integrity and memory of the
author. This helps the student of the prophetic ahādīth to learn
who among the narrators was more careful in guarding the
language of the earliest authorities.
It needs to be appreciated that Imām Muslim has been accused
of showing leniency in accepting ahādīth from the innovators.
The same allegation, though in a lesser degree, has been put on
Imām Bukhārī. This information can prove helpful in explaining
away the problems of some difficult narratives.
10.7 Conclusion
These three books, the primary sources in the hadīth literature,
contain sufficient material of the prophetic knowledge that can
be used to base and construct the entire system of the religion. I
do not hold that the other hadīth compilations are dispensable.
Yet, however, in our effort to construct a proper structure of the
religious teachings of Islam and explain them, these three works,
in addition to the Qur’ān- the word of God - can suffice as the
source material. No other work on the prophetic hadīth can equal
these works.
A full command over these three works makes one comfortably
differentiate between sound and unsound narratives contained in
other works. A thorough knowledge of these renders it sufficient
for one to merely glance through remaining works. It is no more
necessary for the researches to study the rest in equal depth.
Those seeking to ponder over ahādīth have to remain on guard.
The condition of alertness and vigilance in studying ahādīth is as
important for the student of the prophetic knowledge as in any
other discipline. Our great scholars and muhaddithūn have, using
their abilities, with utmost perfection and quality, accomplished
the task of hadīth investigation. They have compiled the hadīth
works and established the discipline of hadīth criticism. The
scholars in the present day can improve this discipline in the light
of the principles set by the muhaddithūn. They can add to them
some other natural principles. The only obligation on the
scholars, however, is that they should not think that the process
of hadīth criticism and analysis has been perfected and
accomplished fully by these great pioneers and that we have only
to study the content of ahādīth. The scholars should, on the
contrary, target improving on the accomplishment of these great
scholars of the past.
_____________

Fundamentals of Hadith Interpretation

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fundamentals of Hadith Interpretation

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Fundamentals of Hadīth Interpretation

Amīn Ahsan Islāhī

Chapter 1: Difference between Hadīth and Sunnah 14

Chapter 2: Interrelation of the Qur’ān the Sunnah and the Hadīth 25

Chapter 3: Fundamental Principles of Understanding Ahādīth 35

Chapter 5: Companions of the Prophet (sws) 57

Chapter 6: Excellence of the Isnād and its Inherent Limitations 65

Chapter 7: Riwāyah bi al-Ma‘nā: Transmission by Meaning 74

Chapter 8: Authoritativeness of Akhbār-i Āhād 83

Chapter 9: Causes of Hadīth Fabrication 92

Chapter 10: Primary Sources of Hadīth Study 105

The present work by Imām Amīn Ahsan Islāhī, a renowned

Tariq Mahmood Hashmi

Under God’s blessing, I have always cherished great interest in

Amīn Ahsan Islāhī

Difference Between Hadīth and Sunnah

Generally people take hadīth and sunnah as synonymous terms.

1.2 Types of Khabar

1.2.1 Khabar-i Mutawātir

A mutawātir hadīth is reported by such a large number of

Although the term khabar-i mutawātir is in vogue; what it

1.2.2 Khabar-i Wāhid

1.3 Categories of Ahādīth according to Authenticity

• ahādīth which are clearly genuine and acceptable.

An explanation of all three follows:

1.3.1 Genuine and Acceptable Ahādīth

• The narratives that contain reports testified by the “human

This should be appreciated that “the acceptance of the ummah”

A group from among my ummah will always hold fast to the

1.3.2 Fabricated and Unacceptable Ahādīth

• The narratives that offend reason.

According to the Hanafī jurists, in the issues of ‘umūm-i

1.3.3 Indeterminable Ahādīth

1.4 The Sunnah

Do they look for anything other than God’s way of dealing

The word sunnah in the discussion of the sources of religion,

Verily God has shown grace to the believers by sending to

1.5 Importance of the Sunnah

Beware, I have been granted the Qur’ān and with it something

This proves that following the Sunnah is as necessary as the

1.6 Mutual Harmony of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah

1.7 Nature and Scope of the Sunnah

1.8 The Sunnah is not based on Ahādīth

It is upon you to follow my practice and that of the Rightly

The Companions (rta) of the Prophet (sws) were the first

1.9 A Question to the Munkirīn-i Sunnah9

1.10 Different Paradigmatic forms of a Single Practice

Interrelation of the Qur’ān, the Sunnah and the Hadīth

2.1 Muhammad (sws) as Teacher of the Sharī‘ah

It is He who sent to the unlettered people a messenger of their

Hasan narrates that ‘Imrān b. Husayn was once sitting among

Some other versions of this narrative are relatively fuller

2.3 Ahādīth and the Sunnah cannot abrogate the Qur’ān

I heard Ahmad b. Hanbal respond to a question about the

Ahmad b. Hanbal believes that the Sunnah explicates, explains

Tell them it is not my right to change it on my own accord. (Q

2.4 Can a Sunnah or a Hadīth specify a General Command of the

Cut the hands of the thief – man (al-sāriq) or woman (al-

The narrative that restricts its application to a certain type of

The hands of the thief may only be cut if he has stolen

The verse gives a general command. It requires cutting the

The general nature of the verse demands that every father

A believer shall not inherit from a disbeliever; nor shall a

General application of the Divine command regarding the